(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "International law situations with solutions and notes, 1908"

\ 



N. Nav. Sp. 



NAVAL WAR COLLEGE 



International Law 



Situations 



WITH SOLUTIONS AND NOTES 



1908 



* 



GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
WASHINGTON 

1909 



PBEFAC E. 



The conference of officers at the Naval War College 
during the past summer having* been largely occupied 
with the consideration of special subjects referred to it 
by the Navy Department; much less time than usual was 
available for the work in international law, with the 
result that the situations considered were fewer in number, 
and the time devoted to their discussion less, than usual. 

The situations considered presented cases demanding 
a .close study of the conventions of the Second Hague 
Peace Conference for their proper solution. The con- 
ventions mentioned will be found in the appendix. 

Prof. George Grafton Wilson, of Brown University, the 
War College lecturer on international law, rendered 
valued assistance in framing the situations, and in their 
subsequent discussion. 

The president of the college invites suggestions from 
officers of the service as to cases under the recent Hague 
conventions. 

Jno. P. Merrell, 
Rear- Admiral, U. 8. Navy, 

President. 

U. S. Naval War College, 

Newport, B. L< November 19, 1908. 

3 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



Page. 
Situation I. — Termination of liability for breach of blockade. 

Solution 9 

Notes. 9 

Historical 9 

Dutch ordinance of 1630 10 

British decisions 11 

Dupuis' opinion 13 

American decisions 16 

Early American opinion 17 

Instructions in 1898 19 

French treaty provisions 20 

Treaty agreements as to necessity of notification -20 

Opinions of text writers 21 

Russian regulations 26 

Japanese regulations 26 

Consideration at The Hague, 1907 27 

Use of tramp steamers 28 

Bearing of the Hague conventions 30 

Termination of voyage 33 

Resume 34 

Conclusion 36 

Situation II. — The twenty-four hour rule. 

Solution 37 

Notes. 37 

Historical 37 

Early regulations , 38 

President Grant's proclamation, 1870 40 

The Netherlands order, 1893 42 

Neutrality proclamations 42 

Belgian decree, 1901 43 

Opinion of Professor Lawrence 44 

Opinion of Hall 45 

French opinion , 45 

Azuni's rules 46 

5 



6 , TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

Situation II — Continued. Page. 

Notes — Continued . 

Opinion of Kleen 46 

Regulations of the Institute of International Law 47 

British propositions in 1907 48 

Application of the Hague Convention to the situation .. . 48 

Case of the Harvard, 1898. . .' , 50 

General summary 51 

Conclusion 52 

Situation III. — Sequestration of prize. 

Solution 53 

Notes 53 

Statement , . . 53 

Early history 53 

British opinion, court and vessel in neutral jurisdiction. . 54 
British opinion, court in belligerent, vessel in neutral 

jurisdiction 56 

British opinion, vessels within belligerent or allied 

jurisdiction, but not near prize court 58 

American opinion, court and vessel outside belligerent 

jurisdiction 60 

American opinion, court in belligerent, vessel in neutral 

jurisdiction ■ 60 

American opinion, legality of capture 62 

Condemnation of prize not brought in 62 

Opinions of text writers 63 

Instructions in regard to the bringing in of prize '. . . 68 

Provisions in recent neutrality proclamations 70 

The question of sequestration of prize in a neutral port at 

the Hague Conference, 1907 73 

Attitude of the United States as to sequestration of prize 

in a neutral port 75 

Conclusion 78 

Situation IV. — Coaling in neutral waters. 

Solution .• 79 

Notes .• 79 

Wording of the Hague Convention respecting the rights 

and duties of neutral powers in naval war 79 

Naval War College discussion, 1906 81 

Neutrality proclamations 82 

Provisions of the Hague Convention, 1907 88 

Report of American delegation 88 

Propositions and discussions at The Hague, 1907 89 

General survey of discussions at The Hague 95 

Resume 96 

Conclusion 97 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 7 

Situation V. — Blockading by mines. Page. 

Solution 98 

Notes 98 

Effective blockade 98 

Treaty provisions 99 

Opinion of court 99 

Obstructions in aid of blockade, stone 99 

Obstructions in aid of blockade, sunken vessels 102 

Use of mines during blockade - 102 

Discussion of the use of mines at the Hague Conference, 

1907 103 

Opinions of text writers 107 

Opinion of Professor Lawrence on the Hague Convention . 110 

Dangers from the use of mines for blockade Ill 

Conclusion 113 



APPENDIX. 

Final Act and Conventions of the Hague Conference, 1907. 

Page. 

Final Act of Conference 117 

Draft convention of judicial arbitration court 129 

Conventions : 

Settlement of international disputes 135 

Senate resolution of ratification 165 

Recovery of contract debts 165 

Senate resolution of ratification 169 

Opening of hostilities 169 

Laws and customs of war on land 170 

Rights and duties of neutral powers on land 188 

Submarine contact mines 194 

Bombardment by naval forces 198 

Naval war and the Geneva convention 201 

Right of capture in naval war 210 

Neutral powers in naval war # 213 

Senate resolution of adherence 221 

Declaration regarding projectiles from balloons 222 

Status of enemy merchant ships 224 

Conversion of merchant ships into war ships 226 

International prize court , 227 

Signatures and reservations 250 



International Law Situations, 

WITH SOLUTIONS AND NOTES, a 



Situation I. 



TERMINATION OF LIABILITY FOE, BREACH OF BLOCKADE. 

There is a war between the United States and State X, 
a South American State. A British tramp steamer, the 
Warren, which sailed from a Russian port with a cargo of 
wheat, runs the blockade maintained by the United 
States with reasonable efficiency before port M of State 
X. The Warren in ballast runs out through the block- 
ade, sails to St. Thomas and takes a cargo for Bremen. 

While the blockade of port M is still maintained, the 
commander of a war ship of the United States, knowing 
the facts, but not pursuing the Warren, comes upon the 
Warren on the North Sea, outside neutral jurisdiction. 

What action should he take? 

SOLUTION. 

In accord with the prevailing American and British 
opinion and practice, and in the absence of instructions or 
other good reasons to the contrary, the commander of the 
war ship of the United States should capture and send 
the Warren to the nearest convenient prize court of the 
United States. 

NOTES ON SITUATION I. 

Historical. — The prohibition of trade with the enemy 
by proclamation has been common for centuries. There 
are proclamations of the thirteenth century containing 
such prohibitions. These proclamations were in the be- 

°Note. — In the following international-law situations all States are 
supposed to have ratified the conventions of the Second Hague Peace 
Conference, unless the name of the State is mentioned. In such case 
attention is paid to the fact of ratification, failure to ratify, or condi- 
tional ratification. 

9 • 



10 LIABILITY FOR BEEACH OF BLOCKADE. 

ginning more frequently issued to the subjects of the 
state itself, later to all. Sometimes there was a mingling 
of what would now be covered by proclamations of block- 
ade and neutrality proclamations. 

Actual blockade, however, is one of the measures com- 
mon in early maritime wars. The propriety of this meas- 
ure has been generally recognized. The objections to 
the measure have usually arisen from attempts to extend 
the practice in such a manner that it unduly bears upon 
neutrals. 

Dutch ordinance of 1630. — One of the earliest definite 
statements of the extension of the penalty for violation to 
the completion of the voyage is found in a resolution of 
the States-General of the United Provinces, bearing date 
of June 26, 1630: 

A l'egard clu second point, Leurs Hautes Puissances declarent, que 
les vaisseaux & marchandises neutres seront aussi confisquez, quand il 
constera par les lettres de Cargaison, Connoissemens, ou autres Docu- 
mens, qu'ils ont ete chargez dans les ports de Flandres, ou qu'ils sont 
destinez d'y aller, quand mime on ne les auroit rencontrez que bien loin 
encore de la, de sorte qu'ils pourroient encore changer de route & d'inten- 
tion. Ceci etantfonde sur ce qu'ils ont deja tente quelque chose d'illicite, 
et wis en ceuvre, quoi qu'ils ne Vayent pas acheve, ni porte au dernier point 
de perfection, a moins que les maitres & les proprietaires de tels vais- 
seaux, ne fissent voir duement qu'ils avoient desiste de leur propre 
mouvement de leur entreprise & voyage destine, & cela avant qu'aucun 
vaisseau de l'Etat les eut vu ou poursuivi, & que ceux-ci trouvassent la 
chose sans fraude: ce qu'on pourra juger en examinant la nature de 
1' affaire par des conjectures, les circonstari^es & l'occasion. 

3. A l'egard du troisieme point, Leurs Hautes Puissances declarent, 
que les vaisseaux revenant des ports de Flandres (sans y avoir ete jettez 
par une extreme necessite) & quoique rencontrez loin de-la dans le Canal 
ou dans la Merdu Nord, par les vaisseaux de l'Etat, quand meme ilsn'auroi- 
ent pas ete vus ni poursuivis par ceux-ci en sortant dela, seront aussi 
confisquez, a cause que tels Navires sont censez avoir ete pris sur lefait, tant 
qu'ils n'ont point acheve ce voyage, & qu'ils ne se sont point sauvez dans 
quelque port libre, ou apartenant a un Prince neutre. Mais ayant ete, 
comme il a ete dit, dans un port libre, & etant pris par les vaisseaux de 
Guerre de l'Etat dans un autre voyage, ces vaisseaux & marchandises 
ne seront point confisquez; a moins qu'ils n'ayent ete en sortant des ports 
de Flandres suivis par les vaisseaux de Guerre, & poursuivis jusques dans 
un autre port que le leur, ou celui de leur destination, & qu'en sortant de 
nouveau de-la, Us ayent ete pris en pleine Mer. (Robinson, Collectanea 
Maritima, 165.) 



BRITISH DECISIONS. 11 

Speaking of this rule of 1630, Kleen says: 

La regie inauguree en 1630, qui augmentait ainsi outre mesure la 
repression, fut bientot abandonnee par les puissances excepte l'Angle- 
terre. Des tribunaux et des publicistes anglais ont persiste — conforme- 
ment a l'ancien systeme d'entendre la culpabilite aux deux cotes 
de l'occasion et du fait, a l'intention et a la destination du voyage 
avant et a sa continuation apres — a faire valoir qu'une violation 
de blocus peut etre poursuivie non seulement sur la place et au 
moment de l'acte, mais avant et apres, durant tout le voyage du 
navire, quand meme Taction ne serait pas encore consommee ou 
qu'elle serait deja passee. Un navire, cense vouloir forcer un blocus, 
ou qui l'a depuis longtemps force, se trouve par cela in delicto durant 
tout le cours du meme voyage. II peut done etre pris, non seulement 
des son depart pour les lieux bloques et partout en chemin {droit de 
prevention), mais encore en revenant de ces lieux, a cause soit de 
l'entree soit de la sortie, tant qu'il n'a pas encore atteint la fin definitive 
de son tour, et cela, lors meme que 1' infraction n'a pas ete empechee 
sur les lieux mais qu'elle a ete toleree par negligence, et qu'aucune 
poursuite n'a .ete faite immediatement apres Faction (droit de suite). 
Et, bien que le navire ne puisse, durant tout ce temps, etre saisi dans 
un port ou une eau neutres, son entree dans leurs limites n'exclut pas la 
poursuite ulterieure ; celle-ci se fait meme independamment des motifs 
du refuge dans les dites limites, n'importe que ce refuge ait eu lieu pour 
eviter la saisie ou par quelque autre raison: pas meme un cas de de- 
tresse n'y fait exception. A la sortie, il peut etre chasse et pris, malgre 
tous les arrets en ports neutres, et meme s'il n'a pas ete poursuivi 
avant. La fin du voyage peut seule y mettre un terme. (I Kleen, La 
Neutrality 638.) 

British decisions. — The case of the Frederick Molke, 
decided in 1798 by Sir William Scott, involved both ingress 
and egress when a port was blockaded. 

Several questions have been raised respecting the property, the pre- 
vious conduct of the vessel, the legality of this sort of trade, and the 
actual violation of a blockade. I shall first consider the last question, 
because if that is determined against the claimant it will render a dis- 
cussion of all other points unnecessary. 

First, then, as to the blockade. These facts appear in the depositions 
of the master, "that on his former voyage he cleared out from Lisbon to 
Copenhagen, but was really destined to Havre if he could escape 
English cruisers; that he was warned by an English frigate, the Dia- 
mond, off Havre, not to go into Havre, as there were two or three ships 
that would stop him; but that he slipt in at night and delivered his 
cargo. ' ' It is therefore sufficiently proved that there were ships on that 
station to prevent ingress, and that the master knowingly evaded the 
blockade; for that a legal blockade did exist results necessarily from 



12 LIABILITY FOE BREACH OF BLOCKADE. 

these facts, as nothing farther is necessary to constitute blockade than 
that there should be a force stationed to prevent communication, and a 
due notice or prohibition given to the party. 

But it is still farther material that this blockade actually continued 
till the ship came out again. It is notorious indeed that Havre was 
blockaded for some time, and although the blockade varied occa- 
sionally, it still continued; for it is not an accidental absence of the 
blockading force, nor the circumstance of being blown off by wind (if 
the suspension and the reason of the suspension are known), that will 
be sufficient in law to remove a blockade. 

It is said this was a new transaction, and that we have no right to 
look back to the delinquency of the former voyage; and a reference is 
made on this point to the law of contraband, where the penalty does 
not attach on the return voyage. But is there that analogy between 
the two cases which should make the law of one necessarily or in 
reason applicable to the other also? I can not think there is such an 
affinity between them; there is this essential difference, that in con- 
traband the offense is deposited with the cargo, whilst in such a case 
as this it is continued and renewed in the subsequent conduct of the 
ship. 

For what is the object of blockade? Not merely to prevent an 
importation of supplies, but to prevent export as well as import, and 
to cut off all communication of commerce with the blockaded place. 
I must therefore consider the act of egress to be as culpable as the act 
of ingress, and the vessel on her return still liable to seizure and con- 
fiscation. 

There may indeed be cases of innocent egress where vessels have 
gone in before the blockade, and under such circumstances it could 
not be maintained that they might not be at liberty to retire. 

But even then a question might arise if it was attempted to carry 
out a cargo, for that would, as I have before stated, contravene one 
of the chief purposes of blockade. 

A ship then, in all cases, coming out of a blockaded port, is in 
the first instance liable to seizure, and to obtain release the claimant 
will be required to give a very satisfactory proof of the innocency of 
his intention. In the present case the ingress was criminal and the 
egress was criminal, and I am decidedly of opinion that both ship 
and cargo, being the property of the same person, are subjecto to con- 
fiscation. (1 C. Robinson, Admiralty Reports, 86.) 

In the case of the Welvaart van Pillaw, Sir William 
Scott rendered an early decision (July 19, 1799) in regard 
to a ship that had passed the blockading forces: 

Another circumstance on which exemption is prayed, is, that she 
had escaped the interior circumvallation , if I may so call it, that she 
had advanced some way on her voyage, and therefore that she had in 
some degree made her escape from the penalties. I can not accede 



DUPUIS' OPINION. 13 

to that argument; if the principle is sound that a neutral vessel is not at 
liberty to come out of a blockaded port with a cargo, I know no other 
natural termination of the offense but the end of that voyage. It 
would be ridiculous to say, "if you can but get past the blockading 
force you are free" — this would be a most absurd application of the 
principle. If that is sound, it must be carried to the extent that I 
have mentioned ; for I see no other point at which it can be terminated . 
(Vide, Bynkershoek, Q. J. P., lib. i. ch. 11.) Being of opinion that 
the principle is sound, I shall hold that if a ship that has broken a 
blockade is taken in any part of that voyage, she is taken in delicto, 
and subject to confiscation. (2 C. Robinson, Admiralty Reports 128.) 

In the case of the General Hamilton in 1805, Sir William 
Scott said in regard to the claim that the vessel had 
completed her voyage when compelled to enter a port in 
distress : 

Another distinction is, that the vessel had terminated her voyage, 
and therefore that the penalty would no longer attach. It is true that 
she had been driven into a port of this country by stress of weather; 
but that is not described by the master as forming any part of the 
original destination, which is represented to have been to New 
Orleans. It is impossible to consider this action as any discontinu- 
ance of the voyage or as a defeasance of the penalty which has been 
incurred. (6 C. Robinson, Admiralty Reports 61.) 

Dupuis' opinion.- — Dupuis interprets the English prac- 
tice as follows: 

Les Anglais considerent que le voyage entier, depuis le port bloque 
jusqu'au port de destination, constitue une infraction ininterrompue 
aux devoirs de la neutralite, une violation flagrante et continue de 
blocus. D'ou il suit que tout croiseur belligerant a qualite pour 
exercer le droit de suite, c'est-a-dire pour operer la capture du navire 
forceur de blocus, en quelque point qu'il le rencontre; il n'est pas 
besoin, pour le prendre sur le fait, que le capteur appartienne a l'esca- 
dre de blocus; quel que soit son emploi, il peut et doit reprimer l'acte 
hostile qui se poursuit devant lui et qui ne prendra fin qu'a l'arrivee 
au port de destination. 

Que faut-il entendre par le port de destination? La question est 
de grande importance; les Anglais la resolvent d'une maniere rigou- 
reuse. Le port de destination sera habituellement le port designe 
dans la charte-partie comme le point final du voyage, sans qu'il y ait 
lieu de tenir compte des ports intermediaires ou le vaisseau pourrait 
relacher, soit pour prendre ou laisser quelque cargaison, soit pour 
chercher un abri contre le mauvais temps; a plus forte raison, ne 
reconnaitrait-on point la qualite de port de destination au port ou la 
poursuite ou la crainte de l'ennemi engagerait le navire a demander 



14 LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF BLOCKADE. 

un refuge. Cette solution rigoureuse est d'ailleurs la consequence 
logique de la conception anglaise du blocus; puisque le blocus interdit 
toute communication, tout voyage maritime des lieux bloques a un 
port quelconque, 1 'infraction se mesure au mepris de cette interdic- 
tion; elle comprend done tout le trajet qu'on se propose jusqu'au 
dernier port ou doivent etre dechargees les marchandises prises aux 
lieux bloques. (Le Droit de la Guerre Maritime d'apres les Doctrines 
Anglaises Contemporaines, p. 220.) 

Pradier-Fodere reviews the English position, citing the 
early practice of Holland: 

II est une autre fiction dont on constate 1' existence, en Hollande, 
dans la premiere moitie du XVII e siecle, dont Bynkershoeck a parle 
comme d'un droit universellement reconnu, qui a trouve un terrain 
tres favorable en Angleterre ainsi qu'aux Etats-Unis d'Amerique, et 
qui est due a la haine jalouse des belligerants contre les neutres et au 
besoin de donner une sanction aux blocus fictifs: e'est ce qu'on a 
nomme le droit de suite. Ce pretendu droit repose, en effet, sur une 
fiction qui fait considerer comme etant en flagrant delit, pendant toute la 
duree de son voyage de retour, jusqu'au port de sa destination, et pendant 
toute la duree de sa traversee, tout navire de commerce neutre qui a 
viole de fait un blocus, soit en entrant, soit en sortant, alors qu'il 
n'avait pas le droit de sortir. Le soi-disant droit de suite est done le 
droit que les belligerants s'arrogent de poursuivre les na vires neutres 
de commerce violateurs d'un blocus regulier, et de les capturer, 
jusqu'au port de leur destination definitive, pendant toute la duree de 
leur traversee, en quelques parages qu'ils soient rencontres. Le plus 
ancien acte dans lequel on en trouve la trace serait l'edit hollandais 
de 1630; il a ete affirme aussi par la convention anglo-hollandaise du 
22 aout 1689, lors du blocus fictif mis par ces deux Puissances sur les 
cotes de la France. 

Le systeme de l-'edit de 1630 prevoit deux situations differentes: 1° 
Les na vires neutres de commerce, violateurs d'un blocus, n'ont pas 
ete vus et poursuivis par les navires bloquants a leur sortie du port 
bloque; 2° ces navires ont ete vus et poursuivis. Dans la premiere 
hypothese, ils peuvent etre arretes en pleine mer (et seront confis- 
qiies) tant qui'ls n'ont pas atteint un port de leur pays, ou qu'ils ne 
se sont pas refugies dans quelque port neutre; dans la seconde hypo- 
these, leur entree dans un port neutre ne les met pas a l'abri pour 
plus tard de la saisie en haute mer et de la confiscation: la poursuite 
continuera apres leur sortie du port neutre, et ils ne seront a l'abri de la 
saisie que lorsqu-^ils auront atteint leur port de destination, ou quel- 
que autre port de leur pays. Les Anglais ont aggrave ce systeme. 
A leur point de vue, les navires violateurs sont saisissables et punis- 
sables aussi longtemps qu'ils n'ont pas atteint leur destination finale, 
sans qu'il faille distinguer s'ils ont ete poursuivis ou non par les croi- 
seurs des belligerants; le delit de violation continue jusqu'a l'arriv6e 



PRADIER-FODERE. 15 

a cette destination, qui n L 'est autre que le port designe par la charte- 
partie comme le point ou doit se terminer le voyage, et n'est jamais 
efface par une simple interruption dans le trajet, par une relache dans 
un port intermediaire, volontaire ou meme forcee. La violation du 
blocus ne prend done pas fin des que les lignes ont ete franchies avec 
succes; le voyage entier, depuis le port bloque jusqu'au port de desti- 
nation, constitue une infraction ininterrompue aux devoirs de la neu- 
tralite, une violation flagrante et continue du blocus; tout croiseur 
belligerant faisant partie ou non de Vescadre bloquante, a qualite pour 
operer la capture du navire forceur de blocus, en quelque point qu'il 
le rencontre; tout croiseur anglais, quel que soit son emploi, peut et doit 
reprimer l'acte hostile qui se continue ainsi devant lui et ne prendra 
fin qu'a l'arrivee au port de destination. (8 Droit Int. Public, sec. 
3143.) 

Later in the same section Pradier-Fodere says of the 
English and American practice: 

II est certain que le delit de rupture de blocus n-^est pas un delit de 
droit penal mais de droit international, e'est-a-dire un manquement 
au devoir de non-immixtion dans les hostilites, mais la definition du 
flagrant delit donnee par le code destruction criminelle francais lui 
convient, et dans tous les cas un tel manquement a un devoir inter- 
national ne peut autoriser la saisie qu'au moment ou il se produit. 
Raisonnablement, meme, comment admettre que le flagrant delit dure 
pendant tout un voyage, souvent tres long, alors surtout que le cou- 
pable peut n'avoir ete, ni vu, ni apercu, au moment du delit, et que, 
pour avoir connaissance du fait, il a pu etre necessaire de monter a son 
bord arm d J en chercher la preuve dans ses propres papiers. II ne peut 
y avoir de flagrant delit que dans le cas ou le navire neutre, apercu au 
moment de la violation du blocus, est saisi sur les lieux et au moment 
meme, ou bien a ete poursuivi a vue par un des batiments bloquants; 
dans ce cas le flagrant delit- durera aussi longtemps que la pour suite a 
vue pourra Ure continuee, et cessera des que le navire neutre aura cesse 
d'etre en vue, ou des qu'il sera entre dans un port neutre, ou non. 
quelconque. Voila ce que suggerent le bon sens et la connaissance 
des sains principes du droit. Telle est la doctrine qu'on peut qualifier 
de francaise, parce qu'elle est predominante en France, mais qui a ete 
adoptee generalement par les autres Etats de 1' Europe continentale. 
Suivant la doctrine francaise, la tentative de franchir la ligne d'un 
blocus n'est punissable qu'au moment m£me ou elle s'accomplit; les 
navires neutres de commerce qui s'en rendent coupables ne peuvent 
etre saisis que s'ils sont surpris en flagrant delit, e'est-a-dire au moment 
meme oil ils franchissent la ligne apres notification speciale prealable: 
ou dans le port bloque lorsque le bloquant a reussi a y penetrer par la 
force ou par surprise, car les navires neutres qui s'y trouvent en violation 
du blocus n'ont jamais cesse d'etre en vue et sous le coup de la pour- 
suite; ou au moment oil ces navires neutres se presentent pour sortir 



16 LIABILITY FOE BREACH OF BLOCKADE. 

du port dont ils ont force l'acces, ou dans lequel ils sont entres sans 
delit de violation, mais dont ils ne peuvent sortir dans telles conditions 
determinees. Si l'escadre de blocus n'a pu arreter le navire coupable 
de violation, elle peut detacher un des vaisseaux qui la composent 
pour poursuivre a vue ce navire, et ce dernier ne sera valablement saisi 
que s'il est atteint par le vaisseau detaclie de l'escadre bloquante avant 
d'etre entre dans un port de son pays, ou dans un port neutre, car le 
droit de prise ne peut s'exercer dans les eaux neutres, et une fois entre 
dans un port de son pays, ou dans les eaux neutres, s'il en ressort il ne 
peut plus etre question de flagrant delit. Les navires forceurs de 
blocus ne peuvent etre captures que par les batiments de l'escadre 
bloquante. D'apres la doctrine franchise, en un mot, s'il agit de 
violation de blocus par entree, le navire neutre qui viole un blocus par 
entree au port bloque ne peut etre capture que sur la ligne du blocus, ou 
sur poursuite commencee de la ligne du blocus et terminee, avec succes, 
avant l'arrivee du navire poursuivi, dans un port de son pays ou dans 
les eaux territoriales d'un Etat neutre; s'il est question de violation 
par sortie, cette violation prend fin des que les lignes ont ete franchies 
avec succes. Celui qui viole un blocus par sortie ne peut etre pris 
qu'au moment ou il essaie de franchir les lignes d'investissement, ou au 
cours d'une poursuite commencee sur le champ et achevee avec succes 
en haute mer. Dans l'un et l'autre cas de violation la capture ne peut 
avoir lieu que par les navires de l'escadre de blocus. Cette doctrine 
si conforme a la nature des choses, au droit et a la raison, exclut, on le 
voit, le droit de suite, qui n'est qu'un vestige des blocus fictifs. La 
declaration du congres de Paris, du 16 avril 1856, et les traites conclus 
depuis cette epoque par les Puissances maritimes, l'ont virtuellement 
supprime en exigeant que les blocus soient effectifs. 

American decisions. — In the case of the British-owned 
steamer Memphis, seized by the U. S. S. Magnoliava 1862, 
it was claimed that the Magnolia, which seized the 
Memphis for violation of the blockade of Charleston, 
could not legally make such a capture, because not a 
part of the blockading squadron and because the seizure 
was made at a point about 85 miles distant from the 
blockade. 

The decision of Mr. Justice Betts was that : 

Any public vessel of the belligerent whose rights had been violated 
may be the agent or minister to apprehend the offender, though, by 
dexterity or superior speed, the culpable actor may escape arrest at the 
time or place of the perpetration of the wrong. * * * 

A vessel guilty of an unlawful trade with the enemy is liable to cap- 
ture at any time during the voyage in which the offence is committed . 
(The Memphis, Blatchford Prize Cases, 260.) 



EAKLY AMERICAN OPINION. 17 

As was said in the case of the Olinde Rodrigues, decided 
by the Supreme Court, May 15, 1899, our Government 
was originally of opinion that " commercial blockades in 
respect of neutral powers ought to be done away with; 
but that view was not accepted, and during the period of 
the civil war the largest commercial blockade ever known 
was established." (174 U. S. Supreme Court Reports, 
510.) 

Early American opinion. — The United States was 
inclined to follow the European law of nations in regard 
to the principle of blockade in the eighteenth and early 
nineteenth century. In 1797, in the instructions to the 
representatives to France, the Secretary of State said: 

Such extensive depredations have been committed on the commerce 
of neutrals, and especially of the United States, by the citizens of 
France, under pretence that her enemies (particularly Great Britain) 
have done the same things, it will be desirable to have it explicitly 
stipulated that the conduct of an enemy towards the neutral Power 
shall not authorize or excuse the other belligerent Power in any de- 
parture from the law of nations or the stipulations of the treaty; espe- 
cially that the vessels of the neutral nation shall never be captured or 
detained, or their property confiscated or injured, because bound to or 
from an enemy's port, except the case of a blockaded port, the entering 
into which may be prevented according to the known rule of the law 
of nations. And it may be expedient to define a blockaded place or 
port to be one actually invested by land or naval forces, or both, and 
that no declaration of a blockade shall have any effect without such 
actual investment. And no commercial right whatever should be 
abandoned which is secured to "neutral Powers by the European law 
of nations. (American State Papers 2 Foreign Relations 154.) 

Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, in 1806 made a report 
to the President, mentioning other deviations from what 
he would at that time regard as international law. 

The most important of the principles interpolated into the law of 
nations, is that which appears to be maintained by the British Govern- 
ment and its prize courts, that a trade opened to neutrals by a nation 
at war, on account of the war, is unlawful. 

The principle has been relaxed from time to time, by order, allowing, 
as favors to neutrals, particular branches of trade, disallowed by the 
general principle; which orders have, also in some instances, extended 
the modifications of the principle beyond its avowed import. 

55983—09 2 



18 LIABILITY FOE BKEACH OF BLOCKADE. 

In like manner, the last of these orders, bearing date the 24th of June 
1803, has incorporated, with the relaxation, a collateral principle, 
which is itself an interpolation, namely, that a vessel on a return 
voyage is liable to capture by the circumstance of her having, on the 
outward voyage, conveyed contraband articles to an enemy's port. 
How far a like penalty, attached, by the same order, to the circum- 
stance of a previous communication with a blockaded port, would like- 
wise be an interpolation, may depend upon the construction under 
which that part of the order has been, or is to be, carried into execution. 

The general principle, first above stated, as lately applied to reex- 
portations of articles imported into neutral countries from hostile 
colonies, or vice versa, by considering the reexportation, in many cases, 
as a continuation of the original voyage, forms another interpolation, 
deeply affecting the trade of neutrals. For a fuller view of this and 
some other interpolations, reference may be had to the documents 
communicated with the message to Congress of the 17th instant. 

The British principle which makes a notification to foreign Govern- 
ments of an intended blockade equivalent to the notice required by 
the law of nations, before the penalty can be incurred; and that which 
subjects to capture vessels, arriving at a port, in the interval between 
a removal and return of the blockading force, are other important 
deviations from the code of public law. (Ibid., p. 728.) 

The United States in 1806 regarded certain of the prac- 
tices of Great Britain, which have since been accorded 
recognition as justifiable by the American Government, as 
beyond the sanction of the law of nations: 

In addition to what is proposed on the subject of blockades in the 
sixth and seventh articles, the perseverance of Great Britain in con- 
sidering a notification of a blockade, and even of an intended blockade, 
to a foreign Government, or its ministers at London, as a notice to its 
citizens, and as rendering a vessel, wherever found in a destination to 
the notified port, liable to capture, calls for a special remedy. The 
palpable injustice of the practice is aggravated by the auxiliary rule 
prevailing in the British courts, that the blockade is to be held in 
legal force until the governmental notifications be expressly rescinded, 
however certain the fact may be that the blockade was never formed, 
or had ceased. You will be at no loss for topics to enforce the incon- 
sistency of these innovations with the law of nations, with the nature 
of blockades, with the safety of neutral commerce, and particularly 
with the communication made to this Government by order of the 
British Government in the year 1804, according to which, the British 
commanders and vice-admiralty courts were instructed not to consider 
any blockade of the islands of Martinique and Guadaloupe as existing, 
unless in respect of particular ports which may actually be invested, 
and then not to capture vessels bound to such ports, unless they shall 
previously have been warned not to enter them. (American State 
Papers, 3 Foreign Relations 121, Letter of Madison to United States 
Ministers at London, May 17, 1806.) 



AMERICAN INSTRUCTIONS, 1898. 19 

That the United States did not accept the extreme doc- 
trine of constructive notification, is seen in the instruc- 
tions of the Secretary of the Navy to Commodore Preble 
early in the nineteenth century: 

Navy Department, February 4, 1804. 

Sir: Your letter of the 12th November, enclosing your circular noti- 
fication of the blockade of the port of Tripoli, I have received. 

Sensible, as you must be, that it is the interest, as well as the dispo- 
sition, of the United States to maintain the rights of neutral nations, 
you will, I trust, cautiously avoid whatever may appear to you to be 
incompatible with those rights. It is, however, deemed necessary, 
and I am charged by the President to state to you what, in his opinion, 
characterizes a blockade. I have, therefore, to inform you, that the 
trade of a neutral, in articles not contraband, cannot be rightfully ob- 
structed to any port not actually blockaded by a force so disposed 
before it, as to create an evident danger of entering it. Whenever, 
therefore, you shall have thus formed a blockade of the port of Tripoli, 
you will have a right to prevent any vessel from entering it, and to 
capture for adjudication any vessel that shall attempt to enter the 
same, with a knowledge of the existence of the blockade. You will, 
however, not take as prize any vessel attempting to enter the port of 
Tripoli without such knowledge; but in every case of an attempt to 
enter, without a previous knowledge of the existence of the blockade, 
you will give the commanding officer of such vessel notice of such 
blockade, and forewarn him from entering; and if, after such a notifi- 
cation such vessel should again attempt to enter the same port, you 
will be justifiable in sending her into port for adjudication. You will, 
sir, hence perceive, that you are to consider your circular communica- 
tion to the neutral Powers not as an evidence that every person at- 
tempting to enter has previous knowledge of the blockade, but merely 
as a friendly notification to them of the blockade, in order that they 
might make the necessary arrangements for the discontinuance of all 
commerce with such blockaded port. 

I have the honor to be, &c, Robert Smith. 

Instructions in 1898. — The present understanding of the 
United States as to what constitutes reasonable efficiency 
and renders a blockade effective is seen in General Order 
492, of June 20, 1898: 

A blockade to be effective and binding must be maintained by a 
force sufficient to render ingress to or egress from the port dangerous. 
If the blockading vessels be driven away by stress of weather, but re- 
turn without delay to their stations, the continuity of the blockade is 
not thereby broken; but if they leave their stations voluntarily, except 
for purposes of the blockade, such as chasing a blockade runner, or are 
driven away by the enemy's force, the blockade is abandoned or broken. 



20 LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF BLOCKADE. 

As the suspension of a blockade is a serious matter, involving a new 
notification, commanding officers will exercise especial care not to give 
grounds for complaints on this score. 

General Order 492 also provides in regard to penalty 
that — 

The liability of a blockade runner to capture and condemnation be- 
gins and terminates with her voyage. If there is good evidence that 
she sailed with intent to evade the blockade, she is good prize from 
the moment she appears upon the high seas. Similarly, if she has 
succeeded in escaping from a blockaded port she is liable to capture 
at any time before she reaches her home port. But with the termina- 
tion of the voyage the offense ends. 

French treaty 'provisions. — In a large number of treaties 
into which France has entered there is the following ar- 
ticle : 

Dans aucun cas un batiment de commerce appartenant a des citoyens 
de l'un des deux pays, qui sera expedie pour un port bloque par l'autre 
6tat, ne pourra etre saisi, capture ou condamne si prealablement il ne 
lui a ete fait une notification ou signification de 1' existence ou con- 
tinuation d'un blocus par les forces bloquantes ou par quelque batiment 
faisant partie de l'escadre ou division du blocus, et pour qu'on ne 
puisse alleguer une pretendue ignorance du blocus, et que le navire 
qui aura recu cette intimation soit dans le cas d'etre capture s'il vient 
ensuite a se representer devant le port bloque pendant le temps que 
durera le blocus, le commandant du batiment de guerre qui fera la 
notification devra apposer son visa sur les papiers du navire visite, ou 
sera faite la signification de l'existence du blocus, et le capitaine du 
navire visite lui donnera un recu de cette signification, contenant les 
declarations exigees par le visa. 

The French practice of notification at the place of 
blockade is generally supported on the Continent. 

Treaty agreements as to necessity of notification. — While 
the United States has maintained the doctrine of con- 
structive notification arising from general notoriety, yet, 
in effect, action by a naval officer upon such a doctrine 
would be at risk, as a number of treaties require that 
proof that the neutral vessel knew of the blockade rests 
upon the captor. By the " most-favored-nation clause" 
such provision as was included in article 13 of the treaty 
of 1827 with Sweden, which is now in force, might become 
effective as regards other states: 



OPINIONS OF TEXT WKITERS. . 21 

Considering the remoteness of the respective countries of the Two 
High Contracting Parties, and the uncertainty resulting therefrom with 
respect to the various events which may take place, it is agreed that a 
merchant vessel, belonging to either of them, which may be bound to a 
port supposed, at the time of its departure, to be blockaded, shall not, 
however, be captured or condemned for having attempted, a first time, 
to enter said port, unless it can be proved that said vessel could, and 
ought to, have learned, during its voyage, that the blockade of the place 
in question still continued. But all vessels which, after having been 
warned off once, shall during the same voyage, attempt, a second time, 
to enter the same blockaded port, during the continuance of said block- 
ade, shall then subject themselves to be detained and condemned. 
(Art. XVIII, Treaty between United States and Sweden, 1827.) 

Opinions of text writers. — Wheaton states the doctrine 
generally accepted in the United States and in Great 
Britain : 

The offence incurred by a breach of blockade generally remains 
during the voyage; but the offence never travels on with the vessel 
further than to the end of the return voyage, although if she is taken 
in any part of that voyage, she is taken in delicto. This is deemed 
reasonable, because no other opportunity is afforded to the belligerent 
cruisers to vindicate the violated law. (Int. Law, sec. 523.) 

Pradier-Fodere says of this interpretation: 

La doctrine et la pratique anglaises ont ete suivies par les Etats- 
Unis de l'Amerique du Nord. Wheaton, par exemple, trouve raison- 
nable que le navire neutre capture a quel moment, dans quel temps 
que ce soit de son voyage de retour, soit considere comme pris en flag- 
rant delit, car, dit-il, il ne s'offre aucune autre occasion aux vaisseaux 
du belligerant de punir la violation du blocus. Cet auteur americain 
oublie que si le blocus est effectif, ainsi qu'il doit Vitre necessairement 
pour etre regulier et obligatoire, il se trouvera toujours devant le point 
bloque des navires de guerre assez proches pour apercevoir Tinfracteur, 
le poursuivre a vue, l'arreter et meme le couler, ce qui rendra possible 
le chatiment sur les lieux memes et immediatement, sans avoir besoin 
d'attendre des conjunctures ulterieures et incertaines. * * * II 
ne peut y avoir de flagrant delit que dans le cas oil le navire neutre, 
apercu au moment de la violation du blocus, est saisi sur les lieux et 
au moment meme, ou bien a ete poursuivi a vue par un des batiments 
bloquants; dans ce cas le ^flagrant delit durera aussi longtemps que la 
poursuite a vue pourra Ure continuee, et cessera des que le navire neutre 
aura cesse d'etre en vue, ou des qu'il sera entre dans un port neutre, 
ou non, quelconque. Voila ce que suggerent le bon sens et la con- 
naissance des sains principes du droit. (8 Droit Int. Public, sec. 
3143, p. 423.) 



22 LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF BLOCKADE. 

Gessner, who has given much attention to the right of 
blockade, says: 

Si un vaisseau neutre, au moment ou il cherche a violer un blocus, 
est poursuivi par un vaisseau de l'escadre bloquante et cherche a s'y 
soustraire par la fuite, le vaisseau belligerant aura incontestablement 
le droit de saisir le vaisseau delinquant s'il l'atteint avant que celui-ci 
soit entre dans un port neutre. Suivant la pratique anglaise, le bel- 
ligerant conserverait ce droit aussi longtemps que le navire neutre ne 
serait pas arrive a destination; ce dernier pourrait etre saisi lorsqu'il 
quitterait son asile pour achever son voyage. Suivant l'opinion que 
nous croyons juste, au contraire, toute poursuite doit cesser du moment 
ou le vaisseau chasse a atteint un port neutre. (Le Droit des Neutres 
sur Mer, 214.) 

Fauchille, who has written learnedly upon the subject 
of blockade, says of the Anglo-American doctrine: 

Cette doctrine anglaise, que les tribunaux americains ont aussi 
appliquee dans la guerre de la secession, est au contraire absolument 
repoussee par les autres puissances. Ces Etats sont en effet d'avis 
qu'un navire coupable de violation de blocus peut seulement etre 
atteint : 1° au moment oil il traverse les eaux occupees par la nation 
bloquante; 2° dans la rade ou le port bloque; 3° au moment ou il se 
presente pour sortir; ils font toutefois cette reserve que si un vaisseau 
neutre, au moment ou il cherche a violer un blocus, est poursuivi par 
un vaisseau de l'escadre bloquante et tente de s'y soustraire par la 
fuite, le vaisseau belligerant doit avoir le droit de saisir le vaisseau 
delinquant, s'il l'atteint avant que celui-ci soit entre dans un port 
neutre. Telle est l'opinion qui parait prevaloir en France, en Alle- 
magne et en Espagne. Telle est aussi la doctrine actuellement suivie 
par l'ltalie * * * 

De ces deux systemes que nous venons d'exposer, lequel faut-il 
preferer? Voila la question qu'il faut maintenant resoudre. 

De ce qu'un fait materiel est necessaire pour constituer la violation de 
blocus, il nous parait logique de conclure que le navire neutre qui enfreint 
le blocus ne peut etre capture qu'au moment meme oil il consomme 
son delit. Alors seulement il y aura surprise du vaisseau en flagrant 
delit et garantie suffisamment serieuse accordee aux neutres contre 
l'oppression des belligerants. Un pareil systeme ne diminue d'ail- 
leurs en aucune facon les droits du bloqueur, et il ne lui enleve point 
les moyens de punir les infracteurs du blocus. En effet, s'il s'agit 
d'un blocus effectif, et nous n'en admettons pas d'autre, il se trouve 
toujours a 1' entree du port des batiments arretes et assez proches 
pour saisir le coupable ou pour le couler, s'il le faut, comme ils en ont 
le droit incontestable et inconteste. Ils doivent, du reste, l'apercevoir 
et le poursuivre a vue. II est done evident que le raisonnement de 
Sir W. Scott, que nous avons rapporte, ne peut avoir d'application 



OPINIONS OF TEXT WRITERS. 23 

qu'aux blocus fictifs, et que par suite il est mal fonde, ces blocus 
n'etant pas reconnus par le droit international. II nous parait impos- 
sible d'admettre la fiction que le flagrant delit puisse exister pendant 
tout un voyage, souvent tres long, alors que le coupable n'a ete ni vu ni 
apercu au moment du delit, et que, pour avoir connaissance du fait, 
il faut monter a bord du navire — navire neutre destine a un port 
neutre — et chercher la preuve dans ses propres papiers. Admettre 
un pareil systeme, ce serait renverser toutes les idees recues en matiere 
criminelle: il n'y a et il ne peut y avoir flagrant delit que dans le cas ou 
le navire, apercu au moment de la rupture du blocus, a ete poursuivi a 
vue par un des batiments bloquants; dans ce cas, le flagrant delit 
durera aussi longtemps que la poursuite a vue pourra etre continuee; 
il cessera done des que le navire aura cesse d'etre en vue ou des qu'il 
sera entre dans un port ami ou neutre. (Du Blocus Maritime, p. 354.). 

Creasy says : 

That liability to seizure for breach of blockade continues so long as 
the blockade actually continues; and so long as the offence for which 
the seizure is made is considered to be continuing. The rule com- 
monly laid down is that the capture must be effected while the vessel 
is in delicto. A vessel which has broken blockade by egress is con- 
sidered to be in delicto until she has reached her port of destination 
and has completed her voyage. But as soon as a blockade is raised a 
vessel ceases to be liable to seizure for breach of blockade, although 
if already captured she is not to be released. (First Platform of Int. 
Law, sec. 619.) 

Rosse, of the French navy, gave his opinion as follows: 

Lorsqu'un navire a viole de fait un blocus, a quel moment doit-il 
etre saisi pour etre regulierement punissable? 

L'Angleterre et les Etats-Unis enseignent qu'ils sont punissables 
tant qu'ils n'ont pas atteint leur destination finale, qu'ils aient ete ou 
non poursuivis par les croiseurs belligerants. • Une relache dans un 
port intermediaire n'interrompt pas le droit de suite. 

Cette doctrine est absolument repoussee par les autres puissances 
qui admettent qu'un navire coupable peut seulement etre atteint: 

1°) Au moment ou il traverse les eaux occupees par la nation blo- 
quante. 

2°) Dans la rade ou le port bloque. 

3°) Au moment ou il se presente pour sortir. 

Toutefois, en cas de poursuite a vue par le bloquant au moment de 
la rupture du blocus, elles admettent le droit de saisie jusqu' a 1' entree 
dans un port neutre. 

Nous nous rangerons a ce systeme, et nous exigerons le flagrant 
delit pour que la capture soit reguliere, mais il parait impossible 
d'admettre que le flagrant delit puisse exister pendant tout un voyage, 



24 LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF BLOCKADE. 

alors que le coupable n'a ete ni vu ni apercu au moment du delit et 
que, pour avoir connaissance du fait, il faut monter a bord du navire 
et chercher la preuve dans ses papiers. 

Ce que nous avons dit du navire qui, a sa sortie, est poursuivi par le 
bloquant, doit etre entendu aussi de celui qui est entre dans la place 
investie et qui s'y trouve encore au moment ou elle est prise. Ce 
navire, qui n'a jamais cesse d'etre en vue, est toujours sous le coup de 
la poursuite legitime du bloqueur. (Guide International du Com- 
mandant de Batiment de Guerre, p. 259.) 

According to the opinion of Kent: 

If a ship has contracted guilt by a breach of blockade, the offence is 
not discharged until the end of the voyage. The penalty never travels 
on with the vessel further than to the end of the return voyage; and if 
she is taken in any part of that voyage, she is taken in delicto. (I Kent 
Commentaries, 151.) 

Halleck mentions the possible cases in which egress 
from a blockaded port is allowed: 

There are a number of cases in which the egress of the neutral vessel, 
during a blockade, is justified or excused, which we will enumerate. 
First, If the ship is proved to have been in the blockaded port when 
the blockade was laid, she may retire in ballast, for such egress affords 
no aid to the commerce of the enemy, and has no tendency to defeat 
any legitimate purpose for which the blockade was established. Sec- 
ond, If the egress was from physical necessity, arising from stress of 
weather, and the immediate need of water, or provisions, or repairs. 
Third, Where the entrance with a cargo was authorized by a license, 
such license is construed to authorize the return of the ship with a 
cargo. Fourth, Where a neutral ship, arriving at the entrance of a 
blockaded port, in ignorance of the blockade, is suffered to pass, there 
is an implied permission to enter, which fully protects her egress. 
But this implied permission does not, of necessary consequence, pro- 
tect the cargo, for its owners may be guilty of a criminal violation of 
the blockade even where the ship is innocent. Fifth, A neutral ship, 
whose entry into the blockaded port was lawful, is permitted to return 
with her original cargo that has been found unsaleable, and reshipped 
during the blockade. Sixth, An equitable exception is allowed in 
favor of a neutral ship that leaves the port in the just expectation of a 
war between her own country and that to which the blockaded port 
belongs. In this case, she is permitted to depart, even with a cargo 
purchased from the enemy during the blockade, if the purchase was 
made with the funds of neutral owners, and the investment and ship- 
ment were probably necessary to save the property, in the event of a 
war, from a seizure and confiscation by the enemy. But it is not the 
mere apprehension of a remote and possible danger that will entitle a 
neutral ship to this exemption. To save the vessel and cargo from 



OPINIONS OF TEXT WKITERS. 25 

condemnation, it must appear that there was a well-founded expecta- 
tion of an immediate war, and consequently that the danger of the 
seizure and confiscation of the property was imminent and pressing. 
(2 Halleck Int. Law, Baker 4th ed., p. 236, ch. XXV, sec. 34.) 

The above reasons would not excuse a merchant vessel 
which had deliberately violated the blockade by ingress. 

Duer says that a neutral ship is not permitted to enter 
a blockaded port even in ballast — 

Although an exception of this kind is allowed in the case of an 
egress, the reasons on which it is founded are not applicable to an 
inward voyage. The egress is necessary to restore the ship to the 
beneficial use of the owners, and can tend, in no degree, to aid the 
commerce that is meant to be prohibited; but there can be no neces- 
sity for sending a ship to a blockaded port, and the intention of pro- 
curing a freight is the only assignable motive of the voyage. It is a 
fair presumption that it is intended that she shall return with a cargo, 
purchased or prepared in the blockaded port, not that she shall return 
in ballast, thus rendering the entire expedition a fruitless expense, 
nor that she will remain useless in port during the uncertain period 
that the blockade may continue. (1 Insurance, 671.) 

According to the opinion of Bluntschli: 

Les navires neutres ne peuvent etre captures en dehors des eaux 
bloquees, meme lorsq'ils ont reussi a forcer le blocus. (Bluntschli, 
Droit International Codifie, sec. 836.) 

General Davis says of violation of blockade: 

When the offence is one of egress the penalty continues until the 
vessel reaches the territorial waters of a neutral state. (Elements of 
Int. Law, p. 476.) 

In regard to the duration to the return to the home 
port of the liability to penalty for violation of blockade, 
Kleen says: 

C'est a juste titre que bon nombre de publicistes modernes condam- 
nent severement encore cette derniere maniere d'augmenter indu- 
ment la repression. Leurs raisons sont pour la plupart les memes que 
celles alleguees plus haut contre 1 'extension de la culpabilite elle-meme 
au dela de l'acte et de son moment a savoir principalement: que 
l'etat juridique du blocus est essentiellement local; que sa com- 
petence ne peut pas etre etendue au dela de cet etat, a d'autres occa- 
sions et a d'autres places; qu'une poursuite qui precederait l'acte, fondee 
sur la presomption toujours incertained' intentions ou de destinations, 
tomberait dans l'arbitraire, et que celle qui succederait, notamment au 
refuge du navire coupable dans un port neutre, prolongerait le droit de 
la guerre au dela de ses limites et menacerait la securite generale. 



26 LIABILITY FOE BREACH OF BLOCKADE. 

Aussi ces publicistes s'accordent-ils a reconnaitre que, de meme 
qu'un blocus ne peut etre viole que sur ses lieux et qu'il ne peut pas 
l'etre par le voyage, de meme la violation ne peut etre poursuivie qu'en 
flagrant delit, ni avant ni apres. Avant, aucune mesure quelconque 
ne peut legalement etre prise contre le navire suspect; et apres, aucune 
mesure ne peut etre prise autre que celles qui sont motivees par des 
circonstances et qui sont censees propres a prolonger la phase du fait, a 
savoir les saisies soit dans le port meme, soit sur la place a la sortie de 
la, soit enfin sur la haute mer et dans les eaux des belligerants a la seule 
condition que la poursuite ait commence au moment du fait et sur la 
place, et que sa continuation aux dits lieux n'ait pas ete interrompue 
mais puisse etre consideree comme une simple suite de Taction dirigee 
contre le delit pris sur le fait. Au contraire, un navire deja echappe, 
dont Faction interdite n'a pas ete empechee ni attaquee sur la place 
du blocus, et qui n'a pas non plus ete poursuivi immediatement, ne 
peut pas etre attaque apres coup et ailleurs, fut-ce pendant le meme 
voyage. Et une fois dans les ports ou les eaux neutres, il est pour 
tou jours hors de portee de toute poursuite, independamment de la fin 
du voyage. (I Kleen, La Neutralite, p. 639.) 

Russian regulations. — The Russian prize regulations of 
March 27, 1895, Article 11, provides that: . 

Merchant vessels of neutral nationality are subject to confiscation as 
prizes in the following cases: * * * (2) when the vessels are caught 
violating a blockade and it is not proven that the establishment of the 
blockade remained unknown to the masters. 

In the instructions for the carrying out these regula- 
tions it is stated that — 

37. Vessels subject to detention are the following: * * * (2) 
Neutral merchant vessels. * * * (3) If they are caught violating 
an actual and declared blockade. 

Japanese regulations. — The Japanese regulations of 
March 7, 1904, in general follow English precedents, and 
give the belligerent more liberty than is customary under 
continental practice. 

Art. XXI. Blockade is to close an enemy's port, bay, or coast with 
force, and is effective when the force is strong enough to threaten any 
vessels that attempt to go in or out of the blockaded port or bay or to 
approach the blockaded coast. 

Temporary evacuation of a blockaded area by a squadron or man-of- 
war on account of bad weather or to attain the object of the blockade 
does not interfere with the effectiveness of the blockade. 

Art. XXV. In case the master of a vessel receives warning direct 
from an imperial war vessel, or it is clear that he knows of the existence 



CONSIDERATION AT THE HAGUE, 1907. 27 

of the blockade from official or private information or from any other 
source, such master shall be considered to have received actual notice 
of the blockade. 

Art. XXXVII. Any vessel that comes under one of the following 
categories shall be captured no matter of what national character it is: 
(1) Vessels that carry persons, papers, or goods that are contraband of 
war. (2) Vessels that carry no ship's papers, or have willfully muti- 
lated or thrown them away, or hidden them, or that produce false 
papers. (3) Vessels that have violated a blockade. 

Consideration at The Hague, 1907. — At the Second 
Peace Conference at The Hague in 1907, the Italian 
delegation submitted the following proposition concern- 
ing blockade : 

1. Le blocus pour etre obligatoire doit etre effectif, declare et notifie. 

2. Le blocus est effectif lorsqu'il est maintenu par des forces navales 
de guerre suffisantes pour interdire reellement le passage, et stationnees 
de maniere a creer un danger evident pour les navires qui voudraient 
le tenter. 

Le blocus n'est pas considere comme leve si le mauvais temps a force 
les navires bloquants a s' eloigner momentanement de leur station. 

3. La declaration de blocus doit determiner le moment precis du 
commencement du blocus, ses limites par longitude et latitude, et le 
delai dans lequel la sortie du port est permise aux navires neutres 
entres avant le commencement du blocus. 

4. La declaration doit etre notifiee aux autorites de la place bloquee 
et aux Gouvernements.des Etats neutres. 

Si cette notification n'a pas eu lieu, ou si le navire approchant du port 
bloque prouve qu'il n'avait pas connaissance du blocus, la notification 
doit etre faite au navire meme, par un officier de l'un des batiments for- 
mant le blocus, et inscrite sur les papiers de bord. 

5. Un navire ne peut-etre saisi comme coupable de violation de 
blocus qu'au moment ou il tente de franchir les lignes d'un blocus 
obligatoire. 

6. II est permis aux navires d'entrer dans le port bloque en cas de 
detresse constatee par le commandant du blocus. 

7. Le navire saisi pour violation de blocus pourra etre confisque 
ainsi que sa cargaison, a moins que le proprietaire de celle-ci ne prouve 
que la tentative de violation du blocus a ete commise a son insu. 

The United States delegation proposed the following 
amendments : 

In Article 3 strike out the words "par longitude et latitude." 
Substitute for Article 5, as submitted by the Italian delegation, '"Tout 
navire qui, apres qu'un blocus a ete dument notifie, fait voile pour un 
port ou une place bloques, ou qui essaie de forcer le blocus, peut 
etre saisi pour violation de blocus." 



28 LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF BLOCKADE. 

The delegation from Great Britain proposed : 

In Article 2 to substitute the word "evident 1 ' for "r£el." 

To follow in Article 3 the amendment suggested by the American 
delegation. 

In Article 4 to substitute for the words "le navire approchant" the 
words "un navire approchant." 

In Article 5 to follow the amendment suggested by the American 
delegation. 

Lieutenant-Colonel van Oordt, of the Netherlands dele- 
gation to the Hague Conference of 1907, said of the 
American doctrine of liability to capture throughout 
voyage for violation of blockade: 

L' extension du droit de capture, contenue dans la proposition 
americaine, n'est en effet autre chose que l'application de la pratique 
des blocus iictifs aux blocus effectifs. Accorder au belligerant le droit 
de saisie sur les na vires, qui font voile pour un port bloque, avant 
qu'ils n'aient tente d'y entrer, c'est ajouter au danger imminent du 
passage de la ligne du blocus (le caractere essentiel du blocus effectif) 
le danger d'etre saisi en pleine mer; c'est au fond: etendre le blocus 
pour ainsi dire partout en pleine mer oil il ne peut pas §tre effectif; c'est 
enfin soumettre la saisie au hasard d'une rencontre avec un croiseur de 
l'Etat bloqueur; ce qui est, d'apres les evenements qui ont abouti a la 
Declaration de Paris de 1856, en contradiction avec l'idee meme du 
blocus effectif . (4 e Commission, le 2 aout, 1907.) 

Use of tramp steamers. — The importance of coming to 
some decision as to the possible treatment in time of war 
of what are commonly called " tramp steamers" is evi- 
dent from the following testimony given before the 
British Royal Commission on Supply of Food and Raw 
Material in Time of War in 1904. The conditions of the 
mercantile marine of the world have remained relatively 
unchanged since that time, so that the testimony may be 
taken as applicable to the present time. The chairman 
of the commission, Lord Balfour, examining Mr. Walter 
Runciman, M. P., elicits the following: 

10259 (chairman). I understand you are a member of the firm of 
Walter Runciman & Co., of Newcastle-on-Tyne and London, and that 
you are a part owner and one of the managing directors of a group of 
companies which own 28 cargo vessels of what are known as the tramp 
class, varying in size from 4,000 to 6,000 tons dead weight each. — That 
is so. 



USE OF TRAMP STEAMERS. 29 

10260. I suppose they are engaged on their homeward voyages in 
carrying raw material and grain to British and northern continental 
ports, are they not? — Almost entirely. 

10261. As a matter of fact, during the last year you did carry over 
1,100,000 quarters of grain, of which a considerable portion came to 
British ports? — Yes; a very large amount of it did. 

10262. You are here in consequence of our invitation to you to tell 
us what you can, not so much as the representative of any association, 
but as an owner of this class of vessels? — I come purely as a typical 
tramp owner — not as being authorized by any association. 

10263. You know, of course, the circumstances of the British mer- 
cantile marine; I understand that, speaking roughly, of the 7,000 steam 
vessels of any considerable size flying the British flag, about 1,500 are 
liners and the remainder are tramps? — Yes. 

10264. Can you put those figures into tonnage? — I should say that 
about one-half of the tonnage of the British mercantile marine is tramp 
tonnage. Of course, that is an approximate figure, but it is arrived at 
after consultation with the officials of the Shipping Federation and of 
the Chamber of Shipping, who are the great authorities. 

10265. Classified according to their trading, what should you say 
about these tramps? — It is very difficult to say exactly where they are 
employed, but I should think that about one-third of them are engaged 
in the carriage of grain. 

10266. Would you say that the smaller vessels would be in the north 
of Europe, that the medium-sized vessels would be in the Black Sea 
grain trade, and that the larger boats load homeward from the East, 
Argentine, and America? — That is approximately correct. 

10267. At what kind of average speed do they run? — They are prac- 
tically 9-knot boats. At the outside under pressure they might get 
up to 11| knots, but not beyond that. 

10268. I suppose they are well loaded up when they come home? — 
They have practically all full cargoes; tramp steamers can not afford 
to come with part cargoes. 

10269. Of course, with full cargoes they would not be able to go for 
any length of time at their maximum speed? — No; they go on an aver- 
age at a 9-knot speed at the present time, because it happens to be the 
most economical. If they were to increase their speed to 11 J knots 
that would run away with such an immense amount of coal as to dimin- 
ish their cargo capacity below a profitable level. 

10270. In a vessel of that class the advantage of adding a knot an 
hour to its normal speed is out of proportion to the cost of doing so, is 
it not? — Yes; I should say that the average 6,000-ton tramp, which is 
a fair sample to take, would burn about 20 tons a day going at 9 knots; 
if she were forced up to 10 knots she would probably burn 25 tons a 
day, and if she were forced up to 11 knots about 32 or 35 tons a day. 

10271. Which would very nearly run away with all the profit, in 
addition to the impossibility of a cargo steamer carrying so much 
coal? — Yes. 



30 LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF BLOCKADE. 

10272. Assuming for the moment — because that is one of the prob- 
lems which we are endeavoring to consider — that we were at war with 
a continental power strong at sea, should you anticipate that the appre- 
hensions of captures would lead to a cessation of the tramp steamers 
plying their voyages? — I do not think that that would be so. I think 
tramp-steamer owners, on the whole, are quite sporting, and that they 
are prepared to take risks. They would be paid large freights and would 
naturally endeavor to take advantage of them. 

10273. Then you agree with those witnesses who have told us that 
the freights would be large? — Yes; they might run up to anything; it 
depends entirely on the risk of capture. 

10274. That would be, of course, largely on account of the cost of 
insurance? — Yes; it would be almost entirely on account of that. 
There would naturally be a certain amount of excitement among mer- 
chants, and a great desire to get cargoes of food and raw materials into 
this country. That would, of course, have its effect on the freight 
market, but the main addition would be owing to the cost of insurance. 

10275. Even assuming that we maintained command of the sea, do 
you think that freights would quickly be, as you suggest, tripled or 
quadrupled? — I think they might quite easily; one or two captures 
would have a most exciting effect on the insurance market, and as we 
have seen already that would innate the cost of carriage enormously. 
A 10-per-cent insurance rate, for instance, would have a very consider- 
able effect on freights. 

10276. Assuming for the moment what is a most important considera- 
tion for us that the Atlantic was infested by one or two commerce de- 
stroyers of some hostile power, have you the power of modifying your 
routes from north to south, and so on? — Certainly; we can go anywhere. 
We do so now; for instance, in the summer months we send our vessels 
across the Atlantic north about, and in the winter months we send them 
south about. 

Bearing of the Hague conventions. — There is no question 

that the Warren had knowledge of the existence of the 

blockade through which she had passed on entering and 

within which she had been while unloading: 

A vessel being in a blockaded port is presumed to have notice of the 
blockade as soon as it commences. This is the settled law of nations. 
(2 Black, Prize Cases, 635.) 

According to Convention XII, relative to the establish- 
ment of an international prize court, a case similar to the 
one suggested by this situation might easily pass to this 
court. The convention provides: 

Article I. The validity of the capture of a merchant ship or its 
cargo is decided before a prize court, in accordance with the present 
convention when neutral or enemy property is involved. 



BEARING OF THE HAGUE CONVENTIONS. 31 

Art. II. Jurisdiction in matters of prize is exercised in the first 
instance by the prize courts of the belligerent captor. 

The judgments of these courts are pronounced in public or are offi- 
cially notified to parties concerned who are neutrals or enemies. 

Art. III. The judgments of national prize courts may be brought 
before the international prize court: (1) When the judgment of the 
national prize courts affects the property of a neutral power or indi- 
vidual. (2) When the judgment affects enemy property and relates to — 

(a) Cargo on board a neutral ship. 

(6) An enemy ship captured in the territorial waters of a neutral 
power when that power has not made the capture the subject of a 
diplomatic claim. 

(c) A claim based upon the allegation that the seizure has been 
effected in violation either of the provisions of a convention in force 
between the belligerent powers, or of an enactment issued by the 
belligerent captor. 

The appeal against the judgment of the national court can be based 
on the ground that the judgment was wrong either in fact or in law. 

Art. IV. An appeal may be brought: (1) By a neutral power, if 
the judgment of the national tribunals injuriously affects its property 
or the property of its nationals (article 3, 1), or if the capture of an 
enemy vessel is alleged to have taken place in the territorial waters of 
that power (article 3, 2, b). (2) By a neutral individual, if the judg- 
ment of the national court injuriously affects his property (article 
3, 1), subject, however, to the reservation that the power to which he 
belongs may forbid him to bring the case before the court, or may 
itself undertake the proceedings in his place. (3) By an individual 
subject or citizen of an enemy power, if the judgment of the national 
court injuriously affects his property in the cases referred to in article 
3; (2) except that mentioned in paragraph (6). 

Art. V. An appeal may also be brought on the same conditions as 
in the preceding article by persons belonging either to neutral states 
or to the enemy, deriving their rights from and entitled to represent 
an individual qualified to appeal, and who have taken part in the pro- 
ceedings before the national court. Persons so entitled may appeal 
separately to the extent of their interest. 

The same rule applies in the case of persons belonging either to 
neutral states or to the enemy who derive their rights from and are 
entitled to represent a neutral power whose property was the subject of 
the decision. 

Art. VII. If a question of law to be decided is covered' by a treaty 
in force between the belligerent captor and a power which is itself or 
whose subject or citizen is a party to the proceedings, the court is 
governed by the provisions of the said treaty. 

In the absence of such provisions the court shall apply the rules of 
international law. If no generally recognized rule exists, the court 
shall give judgment in accordance with the general principles of 
justice and equity. 



32 LIABILITY FOE. BREACH OF BLOCKADE. 

Art. VIII. If the court pronounces the capture of the vessel or 
cargo to be valid they shall be disposed of in accordance with the laws 
of the belligerent captor. 

If it pronounces the capture to be null, the court shall order restitu- 
tion of the vessel or cargo, and shall fix, if there is occasion, the amount 
of the damages. If the vessel or cargo have been sold or destroyed, 
the court shall determine the compensation to be given to the owner 
on this account. 

If the national court pronounced the capture to be null, the court 
can only be asked to decide as to the damages. 

Art. XIV. The court is composed of 15 judges — -9 judges constitute 
a quorum. 

A judge who is absent or prevented from sitting is replaced by the 
deputy judge. 

Art. XV. The judges appointed by the following contracting 
powers — Germany, the United States of America, Austria-Hungary, 
France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and Russia — are always sum- 
moned to sit. 

The judges and deputy judges appointed by the other contracting 
powers sit by rota, as shown in the table annexed, to the present con- 
vention; their duties maybe performed successively by the same per- 
son. The same judge may be appointed by several of the said powers. 

If there is to be an international prize court, then such 
differences in practice and theory as exists between the 
French and English in regard to the duration of liability 
of penalty for violation of blockade would be properly 
under consideration. As the Hague Convention in re- 
gard to an international prize court has received general 
approval its ratification is probably merely temporarily 
delayed. According to the report of the United States 
delegates : 

The purpose then of the convention is to substitute international for 
national judgment and to subject the decision of a national court to an 
international tribunal composed of judges trained in maritime law. 
It was not the intention of the framers of the convention to exclude a 
judge of the captor's country whose presence on the bench would insure 
a careful consideration of the captor's point of view, but to make the 
decision of the case depend upon strangers to the controversy who, 
without special interest and national bias, would apply in the solution 
of the case international law and equity. The national judgment 
becomes international; the judgment of the captor yields to the judg- 
ment of the neutral, and it can not be doubted that neutral powers are 
more likely to guard the rights of neutrals than any bench composed 
exclusively of national judges. (Instructions to and Report from the 
Delegates of the United States, Senate Doc. No. 444, p. 45, 60 Cong. 
1st sess., 1908.) 



TERMINATION OF VOYAGE. 33 

Termination of voyage. — Termination of voyage is 
sometimes held to be when a vessel has moored in a port 
twenty-four hours in safety. (Lidgett v. Secretan, Eng- 
lish Common Pleas, January 24, 1870.) 

Port of discharge is often held as termination of 
voyage. 

As was said in the case of the Lucy in 1904, the term 
" voyage' 7 has no fixed or technical meaning. It may 
refer to the outward voyage or to the homeward voyage 
or to the round voyage. (39 Court of Claims, 221.) 

The term " voyage" in maritime law has received 
various interpretations. The common meaning is " the 
passing of a vessel from one place, port, or country to 
another." The term is further defined as u the enter- 
prise entered upon, and not merely the route" (113 Mass. 
Reports, 326), the time during which the vessel is engaged 
in performing the contract contained in the charter. 
(The Carr on Parle, 15 Probate Div., English Law Repts., 
1890, p. 203.) Voyage is sometimes said to be com- 
pleted on discharge of cargo. 

Voyage may be defined arbitrarily by domestic law, 
e. g., a colonial voyage means a voyage from any port 
whatever in a British possession, other than British India 
and Hongkong, to any port whatever, where the distance 
between such ports exceeds 400 miles, or the duration of 
the voyage, as determined under this part of this act, 
exceeds three da}^s. (18 and 19 Vict., c. 119, s. 95.) 

In the case of the Warren the entrance to and depart- 
ure from blockaded portM, of State X, was liable to pen- 
alty as parts of a single venture. This venture was, how- 
ever, complete when the Warren entered St. Thomas and 
began to load under a new charter and proceeded bona 
fide to Bremen. The fact that the Warren was in the 
North Sea bound for Bremen is evidence that this is a new 
venture in no way connected with the violation of block- 
ade. The Warren, under present law, could probably 
claim that her voyage to and from port M ended when 
she reached St. Thomas and that she was therefore 
exempt. 

55983—09 3 



34 LIABILITY FOE BKEACH OF BLOCKADE. 

Resume. — The ordinary British statement, in which 
after a time the United States concurred, as to the lia- 
bility of a vessel which had violated a blockade, was that 
the vessel might be captured at any time before the 
end of the return voyage. This rule was formulated 
with reference to the early commerce by sailing vessels, 
when the duration of a voyage was comparatively easily 
determined. 

The question as to what constitutes a voyage at the 
present time, or as to even what constitutes a return 
voyage, is one upon which there is difference of opinion 
in maritime law. The introduction of steam vessels has 
materially changed the methods of transportation. A 
tramp freight steamer often does not know its course 
beyond its immediate destination and may never return 
to the port from which it starts. Such a steamer per- 
haps takes a cargo from its port of registry, which may be 
Liverpool, to Constantinople, thence to Bombay, to Yoko- 
hama, to San Francisco, to Rio, to Cape Town, etc. 

While the General Order 492, issued by the Navy 
Department of the United States, provides that if a vessel 
"has succeeded in escaping from a blockaded port she 
is liable to capture at any time before she reaches her 
home port," it also says "but with the termination of 
the voyage the offense ends," and "the liability of a 
blockade runner to capture and condemnation begins 
and terminates with her voyage." There is a general 
opinion unfavorable to this doctrine outside of Great 
Britain and the United States, which opinion would limit 
the right of capture to the period of the offense or at- 
tempted offense of violation of the blockade and the period 
during which the blockading force is actively endeavor- 
ing in a legitimate manner to bring the vessel within its 
power. 

There would be no question as to the right of a blockad- 
ing force to pursue a vessel which had violated or 
attempted to violate a blockade upon the high sea, within 
belligerent waters, or under certain circumstances a pur- 
suing vessel might run within the marginal waters of a 



RESUME. 35 

neutral state provided no hostile act is committed there. 
In no case, however, is the vessel liable beyond the com- 
pletion of her voyage. It is held that a vessel which has 
entered a blockaded port and is subsequently taken when 
the port is taken, the blockade being uninterrupted, is 
liable to penalty because the blockading force has con- 
tinuously endeavored to make the capture of the port and 
all offending shipping. 

The application of the extreme claims of Great Britain 
and the United States greatly extends the area of capture 
of neutral vessels. The present tendency is to restrict 
this area unless the vessel has incurred guilt, by actual 
participation in the hostilities, as by unneutral service. 
The Warren had engaged in a commercial venture in- 
volving risk, and the risk should come to an end when she 
has completed the venture, which would seem to be at 
the time when she had passed out of the field of naval op- 
erations — i. e., when she was no longer in danger from the 
blockading force. This danger would continue so long as 
the merchant vessel is pursued by a vessel of the blockad- 
ing fleet and, if pursued, until she completes her voyage. 

The maintenance of the present doctrine of Great 
Britain and the United States would doubtless incline the 
international prize court to the opinion that such an act 
as that of the Warren in entering and departing from the 
blockaded port is evidence of doubt of the effectiveness of 
the blockade of port M. It seems to follow that unless 
there is to be a much stricter interpretation of what con- 
stitutes a blockade, there must be a limitation of the ex- 
treme claims to liability to capture of a vessel like the 
Warren till she has reached a home port. 

As a matter of policy, also, the United States, usually 
neutral, following its traditional attitude, would favor 
the abolition of this extreme claim. 

As the United States has not adhered to the convention 
allowing prize to be sent into neutral ports pending adju- 
dication, there would be the further practical difficulty of 
sending the Warren to a United States court for trial. 
The distance would be great, the liability for the delay 



36 LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF BLOCKADE. 

and injury to the cargo that had in no way been involved 
in the violation of blockade should be considered, and 
exactly what constitutes a voyage is not certain. 

The treatment of the Warren under circumstances set 
forth in this situation would not be the same under the 
policy of different States. 

. The general tendency of American policy since the 
middle of the nineteenth century has been in the direction 
of a justification of capture of such a vessel as the Warren. 
If the flag of the Warren had been that of a neutral State 
other than Great Britain there would be danger that 
international complications might arise even under 
present laws and practice. 

The case of the Warren would be an extreme case under 
the American and British practice, owing to the uncer- 
tainty as to what constitutes a port of destination. 

All circumstances should therefore be very carefully 
considered, involving such as time since the violation of 
the blockade, distance from the blockaded port, evident 
good intentions of the suspected merchantman, etc., and 
in case of doubt the vessel should be sent in for decision by 
the prize court. 

Under the strictest interpretation of the most extended 
claims of Great Britain and the United States the Warren 
would be liable to capture under the circumstances set 
forth in Situation I. 

CONCLUSION. 

In accord with the prevailing American and British 
opinion and practice, and in the absence of instructions or 
other good reasons to the contrary, the commander of the 
war ship of the United States should capture and send the 
Warren to the nearest convenient prize court of the 
United States. 



Situation II. 

THE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR RULE. 

There is a war between States X and Y. Other States 
are neutral. Three war ships of State X have entered 
port N of the United States, which has proclaimed the 
twenty-four hour rule. Within twenty-four hours a war 
ship of State Y enters port N. The three war ships of 
State X sail within the time allowed. The war ship of 
State Y sails twenty-live hours later. Soon after leaving 
port N, the war ship of State Y discovers several war 
ships of State X outside the three-mile limit, but near. 
The war ship of State Y returns to port N. 

How should this war ship be treated ? 

SOLUTION. 

The war ship of State Y should be allowed to return to 
the neutral port without necessarily incurring liability to 
internment, unless it is evident that this return is to escape 
military consequences to which this war ship has, through 
her own action, become subject after departure from 
port N. 

NOTES ON SITUATION II. 

Historical. — The rule that twenty-four hours, or a 
night and a day as it is sometimes stated, shall elapse 
between the departure of vessels of opposing belligerents 
from a neutral port seems to have been used in 1759 by 
Spain. War ships were at that time sometimes allowed 
to depart without this delay, provided the commander 
would not take advantage of the privilege to commit 
hostilities. The delay was, however, imposed on priva- 
teers. The u twenty-four hour rule" was later extended 
and quite generally adopted, with the additional require- 
ment that the vessel must not remain longer than twenty- 
four hours unless under exceptional circumstances. This 
supplementary requirement was instituted largely as a 
result of the action of the U. S. S. Tuscarora which, in 
1862 sailing out of Southampton Water before the Con- 

37 



38 THE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR RULE. 

federate cruiser Nashville, would return within the 
twenty-four hours, during which the Nashville would be 
obliged to remain and would again sail just before the 
Nashville would be able to sail. There have grown up 
various modifications to the original il twenty-four hour" 
interval between sailings with a view to making it a 
reasonable and workable rule. Vessels have been re- 
quired to sail at the expiration of twenty-four hours. 
Their time of sailing has been determined by the order of 
arrival, etc. 

Early regulations. — The action of Spain in 1759, as 
shown in the correspondence, was to introduce a delay 
between the sailing of vessels of the opposing belligerents 
sufficient to remove liability to conflict in the immediate 
neighborhood. (Ortolan, Diplomatic de la Mer, L. Ill, 
c. VIII.) 

Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the neutrality regulations of the 
Italian States in 1778, states the reasons for a rule in 
regard to sailing of vessels of opposing belligerents. 

Art. III. Unvaisseau quelconque de nations en guerre qui se trouvera 
a l'ancre au mole, ou a la Plage de Livourne ou a Portoferrajo, et d'autres 
Echelles du Grand Duche, ne pourra point partir quand il y aura des 
Signaux au Fanal, ou quand il y aura a vue des batimens pour lesquels il 
n'est pas d 'usage de mettre des signaux. Et si les vaisseaux de nations 
en guerre auront deja mis a la voile, et qu'il paroissent des signaux au 
Fanal, ou des batimens, avant qu'ils auront passe la ligne du Melorie, 
ils seront rappelles par le Canon, et devront retourner pour jetter 
l'ancre. Et s'ils viennent de la mer et qu'apres qu'ils seront entres 
en deca de la ligne du Melorie, ils se presentent a vue des batimens, ou 
qu'il se mettent des signaux au fanal, ils ne pourront point rebrousser 
chemin pour aller a leur rencontre, mais ils devront continuer leur 
route pour jetter l'ancre dans le Port ou a la Plage, sans molester les 
batimens qui arrivent. 

Art. IV. Quand un vaisseau d'une nation en guerre aura jette 
l'ancre au mole ou a la plage, il dependra de celui qui est arrive" le 
premier, de partir avant ou apres 1' autre, cependant de tels batimens 
d'une nation en guerre ne pourront partir que vingt-quatre heures 
apres le depart d'autres batimens de pavilion quelconque. 

Art. V. Et comme, vu qu'il entrent frequemment des vaisseaux 
dans nos Ports, et particulierement dans celui de Livourne, et qu'ils en 
repartent de meme, les vaisseaux de nations en guerre pourroient etre 
longtems empeches de partir, au prejudice du commerce, nous voulons 
qu'il leur soit permis de partir meme dans l'espace du terns defendu 



EAKLY REGULATIONS. 39 

par la presente constitution, pourvu que les Capitaines des vaisseaux 
de guerre chaque fois qu'ils voudront partir, ou les Commandans des 
Flottes ou Escadres une fois pour toutes donnent leur parole d'honneur 
aux Gouverneurs de Livourne et de Portoferrajo, de ne point molester 
les navires signales et ceux qui seront a portee de vue, ou eeux qui 
seront partis pendant les vingt-quatre heures, de quelque nation ou 
pavilion qu'ils soient. Et les Capitaines et maitres de navires mar- 
chands ou les armateurs donneront caution suffisante pour observation 
des susdites conditions. (4 De Martens, Recueil des Traites, 207.) 

By the Austrian ordinance of August 7, 1803, it was 
planned to avoid conflict near the Austrian coast: 

Art. XI. Comme tous les vaisseaux, sans exception, doivent jouir de 
la protection, qui derive de la neutralite, et d'une parfaite surete 
dans tous les Ports, rades et cotes soumises a notre domination, on ne 
permettra point qu'il soit exerce des hostilites par un ou plusieurs 
vaisseaux des puissances en guerre, dans les dits Ports, et a une distance 
d'une portee de Canon des cotes, ni consequemment qu'il soit livre de 
combat, poursuivi, attaque, visite ou saisi de batimens. A quoi toutes 
nos autorites, et particulierement les Commandans Militaires dans les 
Ports de mer, devront specialement veiller. 

Art. XII. En vertu des droits resultans de la meme Neutralite, il ne 
sera point permis aux Vaisseaux des Puissances Belligerantes, de croiser 
devant nos Ports a la distance mentionnee dans 1' Article precedent, 
pour y attendre les batimens sortans ou entrans; bien moins encore de 
s'arreter dans les dits Ports avec le dessein d'aller a la rencontre des 
batimens, qui doivent arriver, ou de suivre ceux qui veulent mettre en 
mer. 

Art. XIII. Lorsque des Corsaires ou batimens marchands armes des 
deux puissances belligerantes se trouveront en meme terns dans nos 
Ports, et qu'un d'eux voudra remettre en mer, l'autre ne pourra sortir que 
24 lieures apres; bien entendu que le batiment, qui a le premier jette 
l'ancre dans le Port, consCrvera la faculte de remettre en mer, avant 
ou apres l'autre. Les vaisseaux de guerre, ou des Escadres entieres, ne 
seront cependant point sounds a ce delai de 24 heures, pourvu toutefois 
que leurs Commandans donnent leur parole d'honneur au Gouverneur 
ou premier Officier du Port, de ne poursuivre ou inquieter pendant ce 
laps de terns, aucun batiment de son ennemi. Cette parole sera donnee 
une fois pour toutes, par les Commandans des Flottes et Escadres: les 
Capitaines des vaisseaux particuliers devront renouveller cette pro- 
messe chaque fois qu'il voudront remettre en mer. Quant aux Capi- 
taines de batimens marchands armes ou Corsaires, ils ne pourront sortir 
de Port avant les 24 heures ecoulees, qu'apres avoir fourni une Caution 
reelle de l'accomplissement de leur promesse. 

Art. XIV. II ne sera point permis aux batimens de puissances belli- 
gerantes de sortir du Port, au moment ou l'on auroit signale l'arrivee 
d'un batiment etranger, a moins que, comme il a ete statue dans l'Ar- 



40 THE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR RULE. 

tide precedent, le Commandant des vaisseaux de guerre n'ait donne sa 
parole, et les batimens marchands et armateurs n'aient fourni la Caution 
sumsante, de s'abstenir de tout acte d'hostilite contre les dits batimens. 
(3 Supplement, De Martens, Recueil des Traites, p. 544.) 

The aim of the original rules in regard to the delay of 
twenty-four hours was to put this period of time between 
the pursuit or attack by the vessels of one belligerent of 
those of the other. As Rosse says of the Austrian ordi- 
nance of 1803: 

L'ordonnance autrichienne de 1803 sanctionne une regie differente: 
elle ne rend pas obligatoire l'intervalle de 24 heures pour la sortie, 
mais elle impose aux commandants de batiments armes l'obligation 
de donner au capitaine du port leur parole d'honneur d'attendre 
en mer l'expiration d'un delai de 24 heures, avant de poursuivre ou 
d'attaquer les navires ennemis. (Guide Int. du Commandant de 
Batiment de Guerre, p. 202.) 

President Grant's proclamation, 1870.— The position of 
the United States was set forth in 1870 in the proclama- 
tion of October 8 : 

Whereas on the 22d day of August, 1870, my proclamation was issued, 
enjoining neutrality in the present war between France and the North 
German Confederation and its allies, and declaring, so far as then 
seemed to be necessary, the respective rights and obligations of the 
belligerent parties and of the citizens of the United States ; and whereas 
subsequent information gives reason to apprehend that armed cruisers 
of the belligerents may be tempted to abuse the hospitality accorded to 
them in the ports, harbors, roadsteads, and other waters of the United 
States, by making such waters subservient to the purposes of war: 

Now, therefore, I, Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States of 
America, do hereby proclaim and declare that any frequenting and use 
of the waters within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States by 
the armed vessels of either belligerent, whether public ships or priva- 
teers, for the purpose of preparing for hostile operations, or as posts of 
observation upon the ships of war or privateers or merchant vessels of 
the other belligerent lying within or being about to enter the jurisdic- 
tion of the United States, must be regarded as unfriendly and offensive, 
and in violation of that neutrality which it is the determination of this 
Government to observe ; and to the end that the hazard and inconveni- 
ence of such apprehended practices may be avoided, I further proclaim 
and declare that from and after the 12th day of October instant, and 
during the continuance of the present hostilities between France and 
the North German Confederation and its allies, no ship of war or priva- 
teer of either belligerent shall be permitted to make use of any port, 



PRESIDENT GRANT'S PROCLAMATION, 1870. 41 

harbor, roadstead, or other waters within the jurisdiction of the United 
States as a station or place of resort for any warlike purpose, or for the 
purpose of obtaining any facilities of warlike equipment; and no ship 
of war or privateer of either belligerent shall be permitted to sail out of 
or leave any port, harbor, or roadstead, or waters subject to the jurisdic- 
tion of the United States, from which a vessel of the other belligerent 
(whether the same shall be a ship of war, a privateer, or a merchant 
ship) shall have previously departed, until after the expiration of at 
least twenty-four hours from the departure of such last-mentioned 
vessel beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. (U. S. Foreign 
Relations, 1870, p. 48.) 

A similar proclamation was issued by the United 
States in consequence of the Russo-Japanese war of 
1904-5. 

In regard to this proclamation by President Grant of 
October 8, 1870, Sir Edward Thornton wrote to Earl 
Granville : 

Washington, October 10, 1870. 

My Lord : I have the honor to inclose a copy of a proclamation which 
was signed by the President of the United States on the 8th instant, 
and published yesterday, as to the manner in which, with reference to 
the war now existing between France and the North German Confed- 
eration and its allies, the armed vessels of either belligerent, whether 
public ships or privateers, are to be treated in the ports of the United 
States. The contents of this proclamation are in many respects similar 
to the orders recently given by Her Majesty's Government with respect 
to the treatment of such vessels in British ports. 

It would seem that the issue of this document has been instigated by 
the recent conduct of French vessels of war in the neighborhood of the 
port of New York. It is said that French gunboats have lately moored 
about the entrance of that port, and have sometimes been anchored 
outside, within 3 miles of the coast, for the purpose of intercepting any 
North German vessels which might leave New York, and particularly 
the German steamers, which, in consequence of the termination of the 
blockade of the German ports, have renewed their voyages. On one 
occasion the French gunboat Latouche Treville steamed up the bay of 
New York, round the German steamer Hermann, went out again, and 
anchored outside. 

A French frigate and two smaller vessels of war arrived lately at 
New London, in Connecticut, on the pretext of requiring repairs; 
they remained there for some days, although they only had to repair 
some spars, which could have been done nearly as well at sea as on 
shore. From that point notice could be given of the sailing of German 
vessels from New York, and men-of-war stationed at New London could 
easily have intercepted them. 



42 THE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR RULE. 

Mr. Fish told me that he had represented to the French minister, 
that, although he could not positively allege a violation of international 
law, he considered that the proceedings of belligerent vessels of war 
in hovering about the entrance of a neutral port and as it were, block- 
ading it and making the neighborhood a station for their observations, 
were contrary to custom, and were unfriendly and uncourteous to the 
United States. Mr. Fish added that Mr. Berthemy had written upon 
the subject to the French admiral, who in reply had denied the fact 
of hovering about the port or of using the neighborhood as a station of 
observation ; but confessed that the proceeding of the Latouche Treville 
in entering the port of New York for the purpose of observing the 
German steamer Hermann was improper, and that her commander 
had consequently been severely reproved. 

My Prussian colleague in expressing his satisfaction at the issue of 

the inclosed proclamation, has made observations which lead me to 

suppose that he imagines that by the its provisions merchant vessels 

are prohibited from exporting arms and ammunition from the ports of 

the United States for the use of the belligerents, and I fear that he may 

have telegraphed in that sense to his Government, but though I did 

not feel called upon to question Baron Gerolt's view of the case, I can 

find no expressions in the proclamation which justify such an inter- 

petration; indeed, Mr. Fish denies that it was intended to convey any 

such meaning. 

I have, etc., 

Edw. Thornton. 

(61 British and Foreign State Papers, 1870-71, p. 878.) 

The Netherlands order, 1893. — The Netherlands royal 
order of February 2, 1893 (Official Gazette, No. 46), in 
article 5 provides: 

If, however, war ships or other ships and vessels of the parties at war 
should simultaneously be in the same harbor, roads, or sea channel of 
the State, a period of twenty-four hours shall elapse between the 
departure of a ship or ships, of a vessel or vessels, of the one party and 
the departure of a ship or ships, of a vessel or vessels, of the other party. 

This period, according to circumstances, may be extended by the 
local maritime authorities. 

Neutrality proclamations. — The French declaration of 
neutrality in 1898, to which that of 1904 corresponded, 
was as follows: 

The Government decides in addition that no ship of war of either 
belligerent will be permitted to enter and to remain with her prizes 
in the harbors and anchorages of France, its colonies and protectorates, 
for more than twenty-four hours, except in the case of forced delay or 
justifiable necessity. 



BELGIAK DECREE, 1001. 4B 

While the Italian authorities proclaimed the twenty- 
four-hour rule, their mercantile marine code allows some 
degree of freedom of judgment: 

Art. XI. If ships of war, cruisers, or merchant vessels belonging 
to the two belligerent parties should be at the same time in a port or 
roadstead or on the coast of the Kingdom, there must be an interval 
of at least twenty-four hours between the departure of any vessel of 
one belligerent party and that following of any ship of the other party. 
This interval may be increased according to the circumstances by the 
maritime authority of the place. 

Similar discretion was allowed by other States. 
The Brazilian regulations issued at the outbreak of 
the Spanish- American war in 1898 provide that — 

VI. No war ship or privateer shall be permitted to enter and remain, 
with prizes, in our ports or bays during more than twenty-four hours, 
except in case of a forced putting into port, and in no manner shall it 
be permitted to it to dispose of its prizes or of articles coming out of 
them. 

By the words " except in case of a forced putting into port" should 
also be understood that a ship shall not be required to leave port within 
the said time: 

First. If it shall not have been able to make the preparations indis- 
pensable to enable it to go to sea without risk of being lost. 

Second. If there should be the same risk on account of bad weather. 

Third. And, finally, if it should be menaced by an enemy. 

In these cases, it shall be for the Government, at its discretion, to 
determine, in view of the circumstances, the time within which the 
ship should leave. 

Belgian decree, 1901. — A Belgian royal decree of Feb- 
ruary 18, 1901, made a definite statement in regard to 
the return of war vessels to a neutral port : 

Art. VIII. Vessels belonging to the navy of a power engaged in a 
maritime war are only admitted in the Belgian territorial waters and 
harbors for a stay of twenty-four hours. The same vessel will not be 
admitted twice within the space of three months. 

The prohibition of entrance to a neutral port for a 
period of three months from the date of taking coal in 
that port 'has been general, as in Article XIII of this 
Belgian decree: 

In no case shall vessels of war or privateers of a nation engaged in a 
maritime war be furnished with supplies or means of repairs in excess 
of what is indispensable to reach the nearest port of their country, or of 



44 THE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR RULE. 

a nation allied to theirs in the war. The same vessel may not, unless 
specially authorized, be provided with coal a second time until • the 
expiration of three months after a first coaling in a Belgian port. 

In regard to the sailing of vessels of the two belligerents 
from Belgian ports, the decree provides: 

Art. XIX. Should men-of-war or merchant vessels of two nations in 
a state of war happen to be at the same time in a Belgian harbor or 
waters, there shall occur an interval of at least twenty-four hours, fixed 
by the competent authorities, between the departure of a vessel of one 
of the belligerents and the subsequent departure of a vessel of the other 
belligerent. 

In this case an exception may be made in regard to the prescriptions 
of Article VIII. 

Priority of request secures priority of sailing. 

However, the weaker of the two vessels may be allowed to sail first. 

There is also provision against using a Belgian port as 
a base: 

Art. XV. They must abstain from any act intended to convert their 
place of refuge into a base of operation whatever against their enemies, 
and also from any investigation into the resources, forces, or location of 
their enemies. 

A certain degree of freedom is left to the Government 
in cases warranted by special circumstances: 

Art. XX. The Government reserves the right to modify the pro- 
visions of Articles VIII and following of the present order, with the 
view to taking, in special cases and under exceptional circumstances 
arising, all measures which the strict observation of neutrality might 
render opportune or necessary. 

Opinion of Professor Lawrence. — Lawrence says of the 
" twenty-four hour rule:" 

In recent times neutral states have acted upon their right of imposing 
conditions on belligerent vessels visiting their ports. The twenty-four 
hour rule is the oldest and the most common. It lays down that when 
war vessels of opposing belligerents are in a neutral port at the same 
time, or when war vessels of one side and merchant vessels of the other 
are in the like predicament, at least twenty-four hours shall elapse 
between the departure of those who leave first and the departure of 
their opponents. The object of this injunction is to prevent the occur- 
rence of any fighting either in the waters of the neutral or so close to 
them as to be dangerous to vessels frequenting them. Sometimes the 
word of the commanders that' they will not commence hostilities in or 
near neutral territorial waters has been accepted as sufficient. (Prin- 
ciples of Int. Law, p. 509.) 



OPINION OF HALL. 45 

Opinion of Hall. — Hall, speaking of the " twenty-four- 
hour rule/' writing before the Second Hague Conference, 
says: 

The neutral may take what precautions he chooses in order to hinder 
a fraudulent use being made of his ports provided he attains his object. 
If he prefers to rely upon the word of a commander, there is nothing to 
prevent him. Even if the twenty-four hours' rule becomes hardened 
by far longer practice than now sanctions it, the right of the neutral to 
vary his own port regulations can never be ousted. The rule can never 
be more than one to the enforcement of which a belligerent may trust 
in the absence of notice to the contrary. (Int. Law, 5th ed., p. 628n.) 

The regulations have not been uniform, but the aim 
has usually been definite. Hall says: 

If a belligerent can leave a port at his will, the neutral territory may 
become at any moment a mere trap for an enemy of inferior strength. 
Accordingly during a considerable period, though not very generally 
or continuously, neutral states have taken more or less precaution 
against the danger of their waters being so used. Perhaps the usual 
custom until lately may be stated as having been that the commander 
of a vessel of war was required to give his word not to commit hostilities 
against any vessel issuing from a neutral port shortly before him, and 
that a privateer as being less a responsible person was subjected to 
detention for twenty-four hours. (Int. Law, 5th ed., p. 627.) 

French opinion. — A French writer has recently said of 
the " twenty-four hour rule:" 

La premiere a pour but d'eviter que des hostilites se produisent dans 
un trop proche voisinage d'un port neutre ou deux na vires belligerants 
ennemis ont du chercher asile en meme temps. II peut arriver, en 
effet — et cela arrive plus particulierement lorsque c'est le mauvais 
temps, qui n'a de managements pour personne, qui a contraint des 
belligerants a chercher un refuge — que des vaisseaux ennemis se ren- 
contrent dans un meme port neutre. Tant que ces vaisseaux se trou- 
veront dans le territoire neutre, il est a croire que les regies formelles 
qui s'opposent a toute hostilite sur ce territoire les empecheront de se 
livrer bataille dans ce port neutre ou dans ces eaux. Mais le parti le 
plus fort pourrait cependant profiter de cette reunion fortuite, et, 
sortant du port neutre en meme temps que son ennemi plus faible, il 
pourrait l'assaillir aussitot en pleine mer, et lui infliger une defaite 
certaine. C'est en vue d'eviter d'aussi regrettables consequences a 
l'asile que les Etats neutres ont adopte la regie dite des vingt-quatre 
heures, ainsi formulee par la France dans ses dernieres instructions. 
Lorsque des belligerants ou navires de commerce des deux belligerants 
'se trouveront ensemble dans.un port francais, il y aura un intervalle 
qui ne pourra etre moindre de vingt-quatre heures entre le depart de 



46 THE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR RULE. 

tout navire de l'un des belligerants et le depart subsequent de tout 
batiment de l'autre. Ce delai sera etendu, en cas de besoin, sur 
l'ordre de l'autorite maritime, autant que cela pourra etre necessaire. 
(Rene Gaborit, Questions de Neutralite Maritime soulevees par la 
Guerre Russo-Japonaise, p. 161.) 

Azuni's rules. — Azuni's rules in regard to the applica- 
tion of the " twenty-four hour rule" to war ships of bel- 
ligerents in neutral ports: 

V. They cannot set sail as soon as an enemy's ship has weighed an- 
chor. Twenty-four hours, at least, ought to intervene between the 
departure of the one and that of the other. Where that time has 
elapsed, if the enemy- vessel be still in sight of the port, their departure 
ought to be delayed, until the vessel is out of sight, and it is unknown 
what course she has steered. 

VI. They cannot lie in wait in bays or gulfs, nor conceal themselves 
behind capes, headlands or the small islands belonging to the neutral 
territory, to be on the look-out and ready to chase the vessels of their 
enemy. They ought not, in any manner, to hinder the approach of 
vessels of any nation whatever to the ports and shores of neutral powers. 
(Maritime Law of Europe, Part 2, Chap. V, Art. I, sec. 7.) 

Opinion of Kleen. — Of the rule in regard to the num- 
ber of war ships of a belligerent permitted to be in a 
neutral port at the same time, Kleen says: 

Afin d'eviter les dangers et inconvenients resultant de la presence 
simultanee, dans un port, de trop de navires de guerre, notamment du 
meme Etat, plusieurs legislations ont depuis longtemps fixe un certain 
nombre pour chaque pavilion, comme maximum de ces navires admis en 
meme temps. Autrefois, surtout au XVIII. siecle, ce nombre, variant 
de trois a huit, fut meme etabli par des traites. Encore aujourd'hui, on 
retrouve dans diverses legislations nationales cet expedient suranne 
de parer aux inconvenients d'hotes genants, meme en temps de paix. 
L'avantage est douteux, tant que la loi ne s'en tient qu'au nombre des 
navires et non a celui des canons. Grace a la construction moderne, 
un seul cuirasse peut exposer la tranquillite d'un port a plus de danger 
qu'une huitaine de croiseurs ordinaires. D'ailleurs, la force militaire 
etrangere peut dimcilement etre verifiee par les autorites de la place. 
II est done moins pratique de s'occuper de la question de force ou de 
nombre, que d'etablir simplement: en temps de paix, la permission 
demandee pour chaque fois comme condition d' entree, et en temps de 
guerre, la defense, hors l'asile accorde a la detresse. 

2°. Les Etats qui, etant neutres, admettent encore les navires de 
guerre des belligerants dans leurs ports, meme sans detresse, comme 
par exemple l'Angleterre et l'ltalie, limitent alors le droit de se^our a 
un temps tres court (24 heures). (I Kleen. La Neutrality, p. 536.) 



INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. 47 

Regulations of the Institute of International Law. — The 
Institute of International Law in its session at Edin- 
burgh in 1904 outlined the rules which are generally recog- 
nized in cases of sojourn of war ships of belligerents in 
neutral ports and their departure from such ports: 

Art. 42. La concession d'asile aux belligerants dans les ports neu- 
tres, tout en dependant de la decision de l'Etat souverain du port et ne 
pouvant etre exigee, est presumee, a moins de notification contraire 
prealablernent communiquee. 

Toutefois, quant aux navires de guerre, elle doit etre limitee aux cas 
de veritable detresse, par suite de: 1° defaite, maladie ou equipage in- 
suffisant; 2° peril de mer; 3° manque de moyens d 'existence ou de lo- 
comotion (eau, charbon, vivres); 4° besoin de reparation. 

Un navire belligerant se refugiant dans un port neutre devant la 
poursuite de l'ennemi, ou apres avoir ete defait par lui, ou faute d'equi- 
page pour tenir la mer, doit y rester jusqu'a la fin de la guerre. II en 
est de meme s'il y transporte des malades ou des blesses, et qu'apres 
les avoir debarques, il soit en etat de combattre. Les malades et les 
blesses, tout en etant recus et secourus, sont, apres guerison, internes 
egalement, a moins d'etre reconnus impropres au service militaire. 

Un refuge contre un peril de mer n'est donne aux navires de guerre 
des belligerants que pour la duree du danger. On ne leur fournit de 
l'eau, du charbon, des vivres et autres approvisionnements analogues 
qu'en la quantite necessaire pour atteindre le port national le plus 
proche. Les reparations ne sont permises que dans la mesure neces- 
saire pour que le batiment puisse tenir la mer. Immediatement apres, 
le navire doit quitter le port et les eaux neutres. 

Si deux navires ennemis sont prets a sortir d'un port neutre simul- 
tanement, l'autorite locale etablit, entre leurs appareillages, un inter- 
valle suffisant, de 24 heures au moins. Le droit de sortir le premier 
appartient au navire le premier entre, ou, s'il ne veut pas en user, a 
l'autre, a la charge d'en reclamer l'exercice a l'autorite locale, qui lui 
delivre l'autorisation si l'adversaire, dument avise, persiste a rester. 
Si, a la sortie d'un navire d'un belligerant, un ou plusieurs navires 
ennemis sont signales, le navire sortant doit etre averti et peut etre 
readmis dans le port pour y attendre 1' entree ou la disparition des 
autres. II est defendu d'aller a la rencontre d'un navire ennemi dans 
le port ou les eaux neutres. 

Les navires des belligerants doivent, en port neutre, se conduire 
pacifiquement, obeir aux ordres des autorites, s'abstenir de toutes hos- 
tilites, de toute prise de renfort et de tout recrutement militaire, de 
tout espionnage et de tout emploi du port comme base d 'operation. 

Les autorites neutres font respecter, au besoin par la force, les pre- 
scriptions de cet article. 

L'Etat neutre peut exiger une indemnite de l'Etat belligerant dont 
il a entretenu soit des forces legalement internees, soit des malades et 
blesses, ou dont des navires ont, par megarde ou par infraction a l'ordre 
du port, occasionne des frais ou dommages. " (20 Annuaire de 1'Ins- 
titut de Droit International, 1904, p. 338.) 



48 THE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR RULE. 

British 'propositions in 1907. — Great Britain made the 
following propositions at the conference at The Hague in 
1907 in regard to the sojourn of belligerent ships in neu- 
tral ports: 

(11) Une puissance neutre devra notifier a tout navire de guerre 
d'une puissance belligerante — stationnant a sa connaissance dans ses 
ports ou eaux territoriales au moment de l'ouverture des hostilites — 
qu'il ait a partir dans les 24 heures. 

(12) Une puissance neutre ne devra pas sciemment permettre a un 
navire belligerant de demeurer dans ses ports ou eaux territoriales pour 
une periode de plus de 24 heures, sauf dans les cas prevus aux articles 
de la presente convention. 

(13) Si des navires, soit de guerre soit de commerce, des deux parties 
belligerantes se trouvent au meme moment dans le meme port ou la 
meme rade d'un neutre, le Gouvernement neutre ne devra pas per- 
mettre a un vaisseau de guerre d'un des belligerants de quitter le port 
ou la rade sauf a l'expiration d'un delai de 24 heures apres le "depart 
d'un navire, tant de guerre que de commerce, de l'autre belligerant. 

(14) Si pour des raisons quelconques un navire de guerre belligerant 
ne quitte pas le port ou les eaux d'une puissance neutre apres avoir 
recu un avis d 'avoir a partir, il sera interne jusqu'a la fin de la guerre 
par la puissance neutre, sauf dans le cas ou il aurait ete retenu a cause 
du mauvais etat de la mer. 

(15) Lorsqu'un navire de guerre d'un belligerant se refugie dans des 
eaux neutres afin d'echapper a la poursuite de l'ennemi, il incombe au 
Gouvernement de l'Etat neutre de l'interner jusqu'a la fin de la guerre. 

Application of the Hague Convention to the situation.— 
The Hague Convention of 1907 concerning the Rights 
and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War recognizes 
in its introductory clauses that there are many unsettled 
questions in the field of neutral rights and duties which 
the convention does not cover. The convention is, how- 
ever, a decided contribution toward uniform regulations. 

According to Article XV of this convention: 

In the absence of special provisions to the contrary in the legislation 
of a neutral Power, the maximum number of war ships belonging to a 
belligerent which may be in one of the ports or roadsteads of that Power 
simultaneously shall be three. 

This is in accord with the rules for the Netherlands 
Indies in 1904. An Austrian ordinance of August 7, 
1803, allowed six vessels of a belligerent to enter its ports. 
These were, of course, sailing vessels. 



APPLICATION OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION. 49 

The United States under the Hague Convention, which 
with reservation as to Article III and the exclusion of 
Article XXIII, was adhered to April 17, 1908, would be 
acting properly in admitting the three war ships of State X. 

The United States has generally proclaimed the twenty- 
four hour rule which would render Article XII of the 
convention operative: 

In absence of special provisions to the contrary in the legislation of 
a neutral Power, belligerent war-ships are not permitted to remain in 
the ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters of the said Power for more 
than twenty-four hours, except in the cases covered by the present 
Convention. 

The entrance of the war ship of State Y into the 
United States port brings the vessels of the belligerents 
under Article XVI. 

When war ships belonging to both belligerents are present simulta- 
neously in a neutral port or roadstead, a period of not less than twenty- 
four hours must elapse between the departure of the ship belonging to 
one belligerent and the departure of the ship belonging to the other. 

The order of departure is determined by the order of arrival, unless 
the ship which arrived first is so circumstanced that an extension of its 
stay is permissable. 

A belligerent war ship may not leave a neutral port or roadstead un- 
til twenty-four hours after the departure of a merchant-ship flying the 
flag of its adversary. 

The three war ships of State X sail within the twenty- 
four hour period. 

The war ship of Y sails twenty -five hours later, in 
accord with the provisions of Article XVI. 

The war ship of State Y soon after leaving the neutral 
port N of the United States discovers several war ships 
of State X outside the 3-mile limit, but near, and returns 
to port N. The question naturally arises as to whether 
the war ship which returns under these circumstances is 
liable to be interned by the United States. 

The object of the so-called " twenty-four hour rule" 
should be considered in determining what action should 
be taken under it. The thirteenth convention of the 
Second Hague Conference definitely states that "in cases 
not covered by the present convention, it is expedient to 

55983—09 4 



50 THE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR RULE. 

take into consideration the general principles of the law 
of nations.'' The provisions must therefore be inter- 
preted with reference to their real purpose. 

Article 16 of the thirteenth convention of the Second 
Hague Conference definitely provides that "not less than 
twenty-four hours must elapse between the departure of 
the ship belonging to one belligerent and the departure 
of the ship belonging to the other." 

Article 24 provides for the internment, "if, notwitb 
standing the notification of the neutral power, a bellig- 
erent ship of war does not leave a port where it is not 
entitled to remain." 

The war ship of State Y had not, according to the sit- 
uation, been notified to leave port N, but on leaving dis- 
covers the war ships of State X near by, and even if it 
had returned after notification, the Hague Convention 
provides that a state "is entitled" to take measures 
against the vessel, not that it must take such measures. 

Case of the Harvard, 1898. — An incident in the early 
stages of the Spanish- American war of 1898 suggests the 
need of an amplification of the rule by which a belliger- 
ent man-of-war is required, except in case of stress of 
weather or of need of provisions or repairs, to leave a 
neutral port within twenty-four hours after her arrival: 

On May 11, 1898, Captain Cotton, of the auxiliary cruiser Harvard, 
cabled from St. Pierre, Martinique, to the Secretary of the Navy, that 
the Spanish torpedo-boat destroyer Furor had touched during the 
afternoon at Fort de France, Martinique, and had afterwards left, des- 
tination unknown, and that the governor had ordered him not to sail 
within twenty-four hours from the time of the Furor's departure. At 
noon on the 12th of May Captain Cotton was informed -by the captain 
of the port at St. Pierre that the Furor had about 8 a. m. again called 
at Fort de France and would leave about noon, and that he might go 
to sea at 8 p. m. ; but that if he did not do so, he would be required to 
give the governor twenty-four hours' notice of his intention to leave 
the port. On the same day Captain Cotton received information 
which led him to telegraph to the Secretary of the Navy that he was 
closely observed and blockaded at St. Pierre by the Spanish fleet, and 
that the Spanish torpedo-boat destroyer Terror was at Fort de France. 
Later, Captain Cotton cabled that the Spanish consul protested against 
his stay at St. Pierre, and that he had requested permission to remain 
a week to make necessary repairs to machinery. Replying to these 



GENERAL SUMMARY. 51 

reports the Secretary of the Navy telegraphed to Captain Cotton as 
follows: "Vigorously protest against being forced out of the port in the 
face of superior blockading force, especially as you were detained pre- 
viously in the port by the French authorities because Spanish men-of- 
war had sailed from another port. Also state that United States Gov- 
ernment will bring the matter to the attention of the French Govern- 
ment. Urge United States consul to protest vigorously. " It proved 
to be unnecessary to take further action. Captain Cotton's request 
for time was granted. The governor showed no disposition to force 
him out of port, only requiring twenty-four hours' notice of an inten- 
tion to sail ; and the dangers to which the Harvard seemed to be exposed 
soon disappeared. It may be observed, however, that as the enforce- 
ment under circumstances such as were described of the twenty-four 
hours' limit would constitute a negation of the admitted privilege of 
asylum, it is not likely that it would be held to be applicable in such 
a situation. (Int. Law Situations, 1901, p. 147.) 

General summary. — While the neutral state would of 
course have no jurisdiction over a war ship or fleet which 
had recently left its territory, even though it might re- 
main off its coast, yet the neutral state would have the 
power to determine what vessels it might admit in view 
of a failure by the ship or fleet to observe the spirit of 
the regulations which the neutral state had established 
in regard to departure and sojourn. (Perels, OfTentliche 
Seerecht der Gegenwart, sec. 39, III, 3.) 

If in the situation under consideration the war ships 
of State X were those which had last left port N, they 
would in effect be blockading the United States port N, 
a neutral port, for a bona fide departure twenty-four 
hours in advance of the ship of State Y would have taken 
the ships of State X by that much out of the range of 
of this ship of State Y. The offense is not in such a case 
in the ship of State Y, last departing, but in the ships 
of State X, whose departure purported to have been 
taken twenty-four hours earlier. The vessel of State Y 
should therefore be permitted to return to port in such a 
case without liability to internment. 

If the war ships of State X were other than those 
which had recently left port N and were about to enter 
port N, it has been customary to allow the vessel about 
to depart to return or even for the neutral to summon 



52 THE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR RULE. 

the vessel to return when vessels of one of the belligerents 
are sighted as vessels of the other belligerent leave the 
port. 

If the war ships of State X off the port were other 
than those which had recently left port N and were not 
about to enter port N it would not be customary to force 
the war ship of State Y to meet these vessels, and her 
return would be permitted unless it should be evident 
that the original entrance to port N was in the nature of 
an attempt to escape capture and this return was in fact 
a part of the same transaction. 

CONCLUSION. 

The war ship of State Y should be allowed to return to 
the neutral port without necessarily incurring liability to 
internment, unless it is evident that this return is to es- 
cape military consequences to which this war ship has, 
through her own action, become subject after departure 
from port N. 



Situation III. 

SEQUESTRATION OF PRIZE. 

There is war between the United States and State X. 
Other States are neutral. France has not placed any re- 
striction on the entrance into French ports of vessels with 
prize. 

A war ship of the United States captures a merchant 
vessel of State Z which has evidently been guilty of viola- 
tion of blockade. The United States war vessel is near 
a French port, but remote from a United States prize 
court. In order to avoid more severe action the com- 
mander of the United States war vessel decides to send 
the captured vessel into the French port with the request 
that it be held pending the decision of the United States 
prize court on the evidence which has been forwarded. 

How far would this action be allowable ? 

SOLUTION. 

The commander should not take the prize into French 
port to be sequestrated pending prize proceedings unless 
instructed. He should act in accord with General Orders, 
492, of the Navy Department, 1898. 

20. Prizes should be sent in for adjudication, unless otherwise di- 
rected, to the nearest home port in which a prize court may be sitting. 

NOTES ON SITUATION III. 

Statement. — In Situation III while the United States 
is at war with State X and other States neutral, an Ameri- 
can war ship captures a merchant vessel of State Z be- 
cause of violation of blockade. This vessel is near a 
French port. The question then arises as to whether 
the captor can send a vessel into a neutral port to await 
the decision of a prize court of the United States. 

Early history. — In earlier centuries there seems to have 
been a considerable variation in the practice as to receiv- 
ing prize within neutral ports. In France an ordinance in 

53 



54 SEQUESTRATION OF PRIZE. 

1400 prescribes that prizes made by French war vessels 
shall be sent to French ports. A similar ordinance was 
issued in Denmark in 1710. French ordinances of 1543, 
1674, and 1689, in general made definite provisions by 
which — 

II etoit defendu a tous capitaines ou commandans des vaisseaux de 
guerre, de laisser, ou d'envoyer en pays etranger, aucunes des prises 
qu'ils pourroient faire. 

Christopher Robinson says: 

The practice continued till a new system was introduced by the ord. 
11 March, 1705. "Qui pour la premiere fois a permis de conduire es 
prises dans les ports etrangers, de les y vendre, ou de les ramener, sous 
la guarde et la surveillance des consuls Francais." (Code des Prises 
1799, vol. i, p. 375.) In 1759, ord. 22 May, France seems to have re- 
turned to the old practice: "Aucune prise ne sera conduite dans un 
port etranger, a, moins d'une absolue n£cessite." Code des Prises 1784, 
p. 1221. (Collectanea Maritima, p. 32n.) 

The wars at the end of the eighteenth century dis- 
turbed practice and gave rise to irregularities in many 
matters relating to maritime warfare. 

British opinion, court and vessel in neutral jurisdiction. — 
In the case of the Flad Oyen which had been condemned 
by a French consul in a neutral port, Lord Stowell in 1799 
said of prize condemnations: 

Now, in what form have these adjudications constantly appeared? 
They are the sentences of courts acting and exercising their functions in 
the belligerent country, and it is for the very_ first time in the world 
that, in the year 1799, an attempt is made to impose upon the court a 
sentence of a tribunal not existing in the belligerent country, but of a 
person pretending to be authorized within the dominions of a neutral 
country. In my opinion, if it could be shown that, regarding mere 
speculative general principles, such a condemnation ought to be 
deemed sufficient, that would not be enough; more must be proved; 
it must be shown that it is conformable to the usage and practice of 
nations. 

A great part of the Law of Nations stands on no other foundation; it 
is introduced, indeed, by general principles, but it travels with those 
general principles only to a certain extent; and, if it stops there, you 
are not at liberty to go farther, and to say that mere general speculations 
would bear you out in a further progress. Thus, for instance, on mere 
general principles it is lawful to destroy your enemy, and mere gen- 
eral principles make no great difference as to the manner by which 
this is to be effected; but the conventional law of mankind, which ia 



BRITISH OPINION. 55 

evidenced in their practice, does make a distinction, and allows some 
and prohibits other modes of destruction; and a belligerent is bound 
to confine himself to those modes which the common practice of man- 
kind has employed, and to relinquish those which the same practice 
has not brought within the ordinary exercise of war, however sanc- 
tioned bv its principles and purposes. 

Now, it having been the constant usage that the tribunals of the 
Law of Nations in these matters shall exercise their functions within 
the belligerent country, if it was proved to me in the clearest manner 
that on mere general theory such a tribunal might act in the neutral 
country, I must take my stand on the ancient and universal practice 
of mankind, and say that, as far as that practice has gone, I am willing 
to go, and where it has thought proper to stop, there I must stop like- 
wise. 

It is my duty not to admit, that because one nation has thought 
proper to depart from the common usage of the world, and to meet 
the notice of mankind in a new and unprecedented manner, that I 
am on that account under the necessity of acknowledging the efficacy 
of such a novel institution, merely because general theory might give 
it a degree of countenance, independent of all practice from the earliest 
history of mankind. The institution must conform to the text law, 
and likewise to the constant usage upon the matter; and when I am 
told that, before the present war, no sentence of this kind has ever 
been produced in the annals of mankind, and that it is produced by 
one nation only in this war, I require nothing more to satisfy me that 
it is the duty of this court to reject such a sentence as inadmissible. 

Having thus declared that there must be an antecedent usage upon 
the subject, I should think myself justified in dismissing this matter 
without entering into any farther discussion. But even if we look 
farther, I see no sufficient ground to say, that on mere general prin- 
ciples such a sentence could be sustained; proceedings upon prize are 
proceedings in rem; and it is presumed that the body and substance 
of the thing is in the country which has to exercise the jurisdiction. 
(1 C. Robinson, Admiralty Reports, 135.) 

The condemnation in a neutral port is not far removed 
from the sequestration in a neutral port pending a deci- 
sion of the prize court. Either makes possible the using 
of the neutral port as a sort of base. As was said by 
Lord Stowell in this case of the Flad Oyen: 

It gives one belligerent the unfair advantage of a new station of war 
which does not properly belong to him, and it gives to the other the 
unfair disadvantage of an active enemy in a quarter where no enemy 
would naturally be found. The coasts of Norway could no longer be 
approached by the British merchant with safety, and a suspension of 
commerce would soon be followed by a suspension of amity. 



56 SEQUESTRATION OF PEIZE. 

Wisely, therefore, did the American Government defeat a similar 
attempt made on them, at an earlier period of the war; they knew 
that to permit such an exercise of the rights of war within their cities, 
would be to make their coasts a station of hostility. 

Later practice allowed the validity of condemnation 
when the court sat in the belligerent state ; even though 
the prize might be in a neutral port. This was, however, 
regarded as irregular. 

Certain other points were raised in the case of the 
Falcon. 

This was a case on the claim of the British proprietor of a vessel, 
which had been captured by the French June 2, 1803, and condemned 
in a French consular court at Leghorn and sold under the authority 
of that sentence to the American consul in France. The vessel, after 
that conversion, was condemned on a rehearing, in the nature of an 
appeal in the "Conseil des Prises" at Paris, March 26, 1805. 

If the matter had rested there, on the validity of the consular sen- 
tences at Leghorn, this court, under its former decisions, which have 
been affirmed in the superior court would not have held that title to 
be good. But there has been also a sentence of the Conseil des Prises 



b 



-\ 



at Paris. 

In our own courts it happens unavoidably as to ships taken in the 
East Indies that long before the case comes to adjudication the prop- 
erty may have passed to other hands. If the title is impeached 
before the sentence takes place it may be vitiated, but when a valid 
sentence comes, it must be considered, as operating retroactively, so 
as to rehabilitate the former title. (The Falcon, G Robinson, Admiralty 
Reports 194.) 

British opinion, court in belligerent, vessel in neutral 
jurisdiction. — In the case of the Henrick and Maria, in 
November, 1799, the question arose as to whether a 
purchaser could hold this vessel by the title of condemna- 
tion passed upon her while lying in a neutral port, when 
she had never- been conducted into the country of the 
captor, nor into any port of an ally in time of war. Of 
this Lord Stowell said : 

Without entering into a discussion of the several opinions that have 
been thrown out on this subject, I think I may state the better opin- 
ion and practice to have been that a prize should be brought infra 
praesidia of the capturing country, where, by being so brought, it may 
be considered as incorporated into the mass of national stock. The 
greatest extension that has been allowed has not carried the rule be- 



BRITISH OPINION. 57 

yond the ports or places of security belonging to some friend or ally 
in the war who has a common interest in defending the acquisitions 
of the belligerent, made from the common enemy of both. 

In later times an additional formality has been required, that of a 
sentence of condemnation, in a competent court, decreeing the capture 
to have been rightly made, jure belli; it not being thought fit, in civil- 
ized society, that property of this sort should be converted without the 
senteuce of a competent court pronouncing it to have been seized as 
the property of an enemy, and to be now become jure belli the prop- 
erty of the captor. The purposes of justice require that such exer- 
cises of war should be placed under public inspection; and therefore 
the mere deductio infra praesidia has not been deemed sufficient. No 
man buys under that title; he requires a sentence of condemnation as 
the foundation of the title of the seller; and when the transfer is accepted 
he is liable to have that document called for, as the foundation of his 
own. From the moment that a sentence of condemnation becomes 
necessary, it imposes an additional obligation for bringing the prop- 
erty, on which it is to pass, into the country of the captor; for a legal 
sentence must be the result of legal proceedings in a legitimate court, 
armed with competent authority upon the subject-matter and upon 
the parties concerned — a court which has the means of pursuing the 
proper inquiry and enforcing its decisions. These are principles of 
universal jurisprudence applicable to all courts, and more peculiarly 
to those which by their constitution, in all countries, must act in rem 
upon the corpus or substance of the thing acquired and upon the parties, 
one of whom is not subject to other rights than those of war, and is 
amenable to no jurisdiction but such as belongs to those who possess 
the rights of war against him. 

Upon principle, therefore, it is not to be asserted that a ship brought 
into a neutral port is with effect proceeded against in the belligerent 
country. The res ipsa, the corpus, is not within the possession of the 
court; and possession, in such cases, founds the jurisdiction. (4 C. 
Robinson, Admiralty Reports, 43.) 

Lord Stowell further continues the maintenance of 
this principle, but in view of practice of his country in 
several instances holds that the court — 

Is bound, against the true principle, by practice which it has not 
only admitted, but applied. 

On the effect of the Sentence of the Prize Tribunals of France, pro- 
nounced on vessels carried into neutral ports, the editor takes this 
opportunity of inserting the recent (1807) decision of the Court of 
Appeal. 

******* 

This case involves a question as the validity of sentences of condem- 
nation pronounced in a belligerent country on prizes carried into neu- 
tral ports. There was some difference of opinion among the members 



58 SEQUESTKATION OF PRIZE. 

of the board, before whom the case was originally argued. But it ap- 
peared to me that the acknowledged practice of this country must have 
the effect of making those sentences valid whilst that practice con- 
tinued. For there could be no equity, on which we could deny the 
validity of that title to neutrals purchasing of the enemy, at the same 
time that they were invited to take them from ourselves. (The Henrirh 
and' Maria, 6 Robinson, Admiralty Reports, 138 — Note.) 

In 1854, Doctor Lushington pronounced upon certain 
Russian merchant vessels which the British war vessels 
had brought to the neutral port of Memel, in Prussia. 
The merchant vessels were not seaworthy and had been 
deserted by their crews. 

The Queen's Advocate moved the court to condemn the vessels and 
decree their sale in the port of Memel, stating that an intimation had 
been received from the Prussian Government that no objection would 
be made to such a course, provided they were sold by private contract, 
without being advertised or put up to auction. 

Doctor Lushington said: 

The circumstances under which the present application is made are 
quite peculiar, and form an exception to the general principle upon 
which this court proceeds. Though there is no direct evidence that 
the vessels are Russian, yet there is no claim, and the court entertains 
no doubt upon the subject. I have no hesitation in condemning them; 
and, looking at the fact deposed to, that they are not in a fit state to be 
brought to England, and the consent of the Prussian Government to 
their sale at Memel, the court will allow that course in the present case, 
but with the proviso that the wishes of the Prussian Government shall 
be fully observed with respect to the sale. 

I wish it, moreover, to be expressly understood, that this case is 
decided upon its own peculiar circumstances, and is not to be consid- 
ered as a precedent for the condemnation of a prize while lying in a 
neutral port. The rule is that the prize shall be brought into a port 
belonging to the captors' country, and the court must guard itself 
against allowing a precedent to the contrary to be established. (The 
Polka S pinks, Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Reports, 447.) 

British opinion, vessels within belligerent or allied juris- 
diction, hut not near prize court. — It has been held that it 
is not necessary that the captured vessel should be 
brought into port where the prize court is sitting, pro- 
vided the vessel is within the jurisdiction of the belligerent 
or of an ally, and little objection has been raised to this 
position, since it does not involve the use of neutral terri- 
tory for the ends of war. 



BEITISH OPINION. 59 

No objection was taken to the condemnation in the 
case of La Dame Cecile. 

This was a case on appeal from the Vice- Admiralty Court of Bar- 
badoes, as to a prize ship and cargo of slaves, which had been seized 
by the Goree garrison, who took the usual examinations and forwarded 
them, with the ship papers, to the High Court of Admiralty for adjudi- 
cation, where the ship and cargo were condemned. They were in the 
meantime sold to a British merchant, who sent them to the island of 
Barbadoes for sale. 

Held, these proceedings were valid and not contra to 

26 and 29 Geo. 3, regarding importation into a British 

island. 

The ship and cargo were seized by the garrison of Goree as prize. 
The captors could not bring them in person to adjudication for they 
could not move from their station; and it was impossible that such a 
cargo could find a market anywhere but in the West Indies. (La 
Dame Cecile, 6 Robinson Admiralty Reports 257.) 

A further extension of this principle is seen in the case 
of the Peacock. 

This was an American ship and cargo of wine taken by an English 
privateer on a voyage from Cadiz to London, May 19, 1800, and carried 
into Lisbon, where they were detained a long time, though no proceed- 
i ngs were commenced till they were afterwards brought to Jersey. 

Supposing that the captors were justified in bringing in, to see if 
this representation of the false destination was true or not, what ought 
they to have done? The capture was made in Lat. 42 considerably 
to the north of Lisbon, the wind being then fair for England. It was 
their duty to have brought the prize directly to England; for if the 
public instructions give to captors the power of coming to the most 
convenient ports, they do not give them a wild and arbitrary discretion, 
but a discretion to be soundly exercised, on a due consideration of their 
own convenience, and of the interest of the neutral persons that may 
be concerned. 

Another reason given for this delay is, that they waited for an oppor- 
tunity of sending the vessel to England under convoy. "Whether they 
sailed under convoy at last or not does not appear, but they did not 
sail for six weeks. It is the duty of privateers to bring their prizes 
home to a port of the kingdom as soon as they can. King's ships may 
reasonably be allowed a greater latitude, as being frequently attached 
to stations, which they can not leave. It may sometimes be necessary 
for them to send their prizes to Lisbon; and in some cases, I will not 
say that it may be absolutely impossible for privateers. But it cannot 
be so necessary and unless some very particular reason intervenes, it is 
their duty to bring their prizes home as speedily as possible, unless 
they carry them to the port of Gibraltar. (The Peacock, 4 Robinson 
Admiralty Reports 185.) 



CO SEQUESTKATION OF PRIZE. 

American opinion, court and vessel outside belligerent 
jurisdiction. — During the Mexican war the ship Admit- 
tance was captured as prize by a United States vessel, 
carried to Monterey, and condemned by a court estab- 
lished there. This court, however, was not in the legal 
sense a court of the United States, and hence was not au- 
thorized to adjudicate upon the question of prize or no 
prize. It was decided in the present suit that the captor 
had forfeited no rights by the above proceedings, and an 
order was given to proceed in a court of prize within 
whose jurisdiction were the proceeds of the sale of the 
property. (Jecker et al. v. Montgomery, 13 Howard, 
U. S. Supreme Court Reports, 512.) 

As a general rule, it is the duty of the captor to bring it (the prize) 
within the jurisdiction of a Prize Court of the nation to which he be- 
longs, and to institute proceedings to have it condemned. This is re- 
quired by the act of Congress in cases of capture by ships of war of the 
United States; and this act merely enforces the performance of a duty 
imposed upon the captor by the law of nations, which in all civilized 
countries secures to the captured a trial in a court of competent juris- 
diction before he can finally be deprived of his property. 

But there are cases where, from existing circumstances, the captor 
may be excused from the performance of this duty, and may sell or 
otherwise dispose of the property before condemnation. And where 
the commander of a national ship cannot, without weakening incon- 
veniently the force under his command, spare a sufficient prize crew to 
man the captured vessel ; or where the orders of his government prohibit 
him from doing so, he may lawfully sell or otherwise dispose of the 
captured property in a foreign country; and may afterwards proceed 
to adjudication in a court of the United States. (13 Howard U. S. 
Supreme Court Reports, 516.) 

American opinion, court in belligerent, vessel in neutral 
jurisdiction. — The United States courts in the war with 
Great Britain did not hesitate in following British prec- 
edent : 

The British ships Arabella and Madeira were captured in June, 
1814, by the private armed brig Rambler, Edes, commander, and 
30 boxes of medicines, 16 bales of piece goods, 5 boxes of opium, 
and 75 casks of Madeira wine, parcel of their cargoes, were removed 
on board of the Rambler, carried into the port of Canton, China, and 
there landed. 



AMERICAN OPINION. 61 

Mr. Justice Story said: 

The first question which presents itself, is whether the court has ju- 
risdiction to proceed to the adjudication of prize property, lying in a 
foreign neutral port. This question has been discussed with much 
ability and learning in the courts of Great Britain, and has there been 
finally settled in the arnrmative, not so much on the supposed correct- 
ness of the principle, as the general usage of nations. It was then ad- 
mitted, that condemnation of prize property, lying in the ports of an- 
ally in the war, was strictly justifiable; but it was thought that a differ- 
ent rule might apply to neutral ports. In the courts of the United 
States, the question has received a solemn decision, and it has been 
held that upon principle, a condemnation of a prize lying in a neutral 
portfis valid, and may be rightfully decreed by the prize jurisdiction. 
And the correctness of this decision is evidently presupposed in several 
provisions of the prize act. If therefore, I felt any lurking doubts on 
the subject, I should feel myself bound by authority. But I am free 
to declare, that after much reflection, I am entirely satisfied, that the 
doctrine is found in national law: " It is the duty of captors to bring in 
the master of the captured ship and the ship's papers. An omission to 
do this must be fully and satisfactorily explained to the court. The 
removal of prize goods is an inequality, but is indulged under certain 
circumstances." In point of practice, however, even in the British 
courts, when a similar statutable direction exists, a more indulgent 
rule has been adopted. When property has been captured on a remote 
station, or under circumstances calling for a removal, sale or other con- 
version, or even a delivery on bail, on the ground of some great incon- 
venience, the act has. been held valid upon the proper explanations 
being made, and condemnation has been pronounced in favor of the 
captors. (The Arabella and the Madeira, 2 Gallison's U. S. Circuit 
Court Keports, 368.) 

In the case of Hudson v. Guestier, the United States 
Supreme Court says: 

The vessel and cargo which constitute the subject of controversy 
were seized within the territorial jurisdiction of the Government of 
Santo Domingo, and carried into a Spanish port. "While lying in that 
port proceedings were regularly instituted in the court for the island 
of Guadaloupe; the cargo was sold by a provisional order of that court, 
after which the vessel and cargo were condemned. The single ques- 
tion, therefore, which exists in this case is, did the court of the captor 
lose its jurisdiction over the captured vessel by its being carried into 
a Spanish port? 

A vessel captured as prize of war is, then, while lying in the port of 
a neutral, still in the possession of the sovereign of the captor, and that 
possession cannot be rightfully divested. 



62 SEQUESTRATION OF PRIZE. 

In cases of prize of war, then, the difficulty of executing the sentence 
does not seem to afford any conclusive argument against the juris- 
diction of the court of the captor over a vessel in possession of the 
captor, but lying in a neutral or friendly port. 

Do the same principles apply to a seizure made within the territory 
of a State for the violation of its municipal laws? 

Possession of the res by the sovereign has been considered as giving 
the jurisdiction to his court; the particular mode of introducing the 
subject into the court, or, in other words, of instituting the particular 
process which is preliminary to the sentence, is properly of municipal 
regulation, uncontrolled by the law of nations, and, therefore, is not ex- 
aminable by a foreign tribunal. It would seem, then, that the principles 
which have been stated as applicable in this respect to a prize of war, 
may be applied to a vessel rightfully seized for violating the municipal 
laws of a nation, if the sovereign of the captor possesses the same right 
to maintain his possession against the claim of the original owner in 
the latter as in the former, case. 

Had this been a prize of war, we have precedents and principles 
which would guide us. The cases cited from Robinson's Reports, 
and the regulations made by Louis XVI, in November, 1779, show 
that the practice of condemning prizes of war while lying in neutral 
ports has prevailed in England, and has been adopted in France. The 
objections to this practice may perhaps be sufficient to induce nations 
to change it by common consent, but until they change it the practice 
must be submitted to, and the sentence of condemnation passed under 
such circumstances will bind the property, unless the legislature of 
the country in which the captured vessel may be claimed, or the law 
of nations shall otherwise direct. (Hudson v. Guestier, 4 Cranch U. S. 
Supreme Court Reports, 293.) 

American opinion, legality of capture. — It was held that 
in case a prize was brought within neutral jurisdiction, 
the neutral had a right to assure itself of the legality of 
the capture: 

The right of adjudicating on all captures and questions of prize, 
exclusively belongs to the courts of the captors' country; but, it is an 
exception to the general rule, that where the captured vessel is brought, 
or voluntarily comes, infra praesidia of a neutral power, that power has a 
right to inquire whether its own neutrality has been violated by the 
cruiser which made the capture; and, if such violation has been com- 
mitted, is in duty bound to restore, to the original owner, property 
captured by cruisers illegally equipped in its ports. (The Estrella, 4 
Wheaton U. S. Supreme Court Reports, 298.) 

Condemnation of prize not Drought in. — It is sometimes 
necessary that the court should pass upon captures which 
have been made and which for urgent reason have been 



OPINIONS OF TEXT WRITERS. 63 

destroyed, or have been lost at sea or for other reason 
can not be brought into the port where the prize court 
is sitting: 

It is fully within the usage of prize courts to entertain and perfect 
their jurisdiction over property captured on board a vessel, without 
having the vessel itself brought within this cognizance. (Proceeds of 
Prizes of War, Abbott's Adm. R., 495; 10 Am. Encyc. 357, art. "Prize 
by Story, J.;" Jecker v. Montgomery, 18 How., 110, and 13 How., 
498.) 

In many instances this mode of procedure is indispensable, as in 
the case of the capture of enemy property in neutral vessels, and when 
the vessel is destroyed in capture. (The Edward Barnard, Blatch- 
ford's Prize Cases, 122.) 

The vessel was destroyed by the captors because unfit to be sent in 
for adjudication. The cargo was sent in. Held that the court had judi- 
cial cognizance of the capture of the vessel without having been 
within its territorial jurisdiction. (The Schooner Zavalla and Cargo, 
Blatchford's Prize Cases, 173.) 

This case also decided that although ordinarily it was 
necessary to send in the ship's papers and other first hand 
evidence, yet there might be extraordinary circumstances 
which would excuse a failure to do so. 

The sentence of a competent court proceeding in rem, is conclusive 
with respect to the thing itself, and works an absolute change of the 
property. 

A sale, before condemnation, by one acting under the possession 
of the captor, does not divest the court of jurisdiction, and the con- 
demnation relates back to the capture, affirms its legality, and estab- 
lishes the title of the purchaser. (Williams et al. v. Amroyd, 7 Cranch 
U. S. Supreme Court Reports, 423.) 

Opinions of text writers. — The opinions of American 
and British authorities are fairly uniform. Wheaton in 
his " History of the Law of Nations," summarizes the 
views upon the competency of prize tribunals under 
differing conditions: 

This brings Lampredi to consider the question as to the competent 
tribunal to determine the validity of captures, brought, not within 
the territorial jurisdiction of the sovereign, under whose authority 
the captures are made, but within that of a neutral sovereign, whose 
subjects are no parties to the controversy. And he does not hesitate 
to decide that the possession of the captor, jure belli, of the captured 



64 SEQUESTRATION OF PRIZE. 

property, brought into a neutral port, gives to the belligerent sover- 
eign the exclusive right of determining the validity of the seizure, 
thus made and continued under his authority; that the neutral sover- 
eign is bound to respect the possession of the captor as that of his 
sovereign; and cannot himself undertake to determine the validity 
of the capture, nor to interfere with the execution of the sentence,, 
either of condemnation or restitution, which may be pronounced by 
the competent belligerent tribunal, provided such sentence be pio- 
nounced without the limits of the neutral territory, within which no 
foreign power can usurp the rights of sovereignty. Thus the captures 
made by British cruisers in the Mediterranean, and brought into the 
neutral port of Leghorn, had ever been adjudicated, either by the 
British court of vice-admiralty sitting at Minorca whilst that island 
belonged to Great Britain, or by the High Court of Admiralty 
in England. It is true that the prize commissioners delegated by 
these courts were permitted to examine the captured persons and 
papers of the vessels brought into that port, in order to determine 
the preliminary question whether there was such probable cause of 
capture as to warrant further judicial proceedings, in which case 
the cause was immediately evoked to the competent tribunal sitting 
in the belligerent country. The only two cases, according to Lam- 
predi, in which the neutral sovereign can interfere through his tri- 
bunals to take incidental cognizance of the validity of belligerent 
captures brought within his territorial jurisdiction are: 

1. Where the capture has been made within the neutral territory 
itself, or by an armament fitted out in the ports of the neutral state in 
violation of its laws and treaties. 

2. Where the captured party complains to the neutral sovereign 
that his property has been piratically seized by captors, under color 
of a belligerent commission, to which they are not lawfully entitled; 
In this case the neutral tribunal may so far interfere as to inquire into 
the validity 'of the commission under which the capture was made. 
(Wheaton, History of the Law of Nations, p. 321.) 

Phillimore says: 

An attentive review of all the cases decided in the courts of England 
and the North American United States leads to the conclusion that 
the condemnation of a capture, by a regular Prize Court, sitting in 
the country of the belligerent, of a prize lying at the time of the sen- 
tence in a neutral port, is irregular, but clearly valid. It appeared 
to be the inclination of the English Prize Court, during the last war 
with Russia, to limit to cases of necessity the condemnation of vessels 
lying in a neutral port. It is scarcely necessary to add, after what 
has been said as to the former French law on condemnations by judges 
of the belligerent in neutral ports, that such condemnations of ves- 
sels lying in neutral ports are holden valid by the French Prize Courts. 
(3 Int. Law CCCLXXIX, p. 594.) 



OPINIONS OF TEXT WRITERS. 65 

Hall offers a very positive opinion in regard to the 
treatment of prize brought into a neutral port: 

The right of the captor to that which unquestionably belongs to his 
enemy is no doubt complete as between him and his enemy so soon as 
seizure has been effected; but as between him and a neutral state, as 
has been already seen, further evidence of definitive appropriation is 
required, and his right to the property of a neutral trader seized, for 
example, as being contraband goods or for breach of blockade, is only 
complete after judgment is given by a prize court. If therefore the 
belligerent carries his prize into neutral waters, without deposit in. a 
safe place or possession during twenty-four hours in the case of hostile 
property, or without protection from the judgment of a prize court in 
the case of neutral property, he brings there property which does not 
yet belong to him; in other words, he continues the act of war through 
which it has come into his power. Indirectly also he is militarily 
strengthened by his use of the neutral territory; he deposits an encum- 
brance, and by recovering the prize crew becomes free to act with his 
whole force. Nevertheless, although the neutral may permit or forbid 
the entry of prizes as he thinks best, the belligerent is held, until ex- 
press prohibition, to have the privilege not only of placing his prizes 
within the security of a neutral harbor, but of keeping them there 
while the suit for their condemnation is being prosecuted in the appro- 
priate court. Most writers think that he is also justified by usage in 
selling them at the neutral port after condemnation; and, as they then 
undoubtedly belong to him, it is hard to see on what ground he can be 
prohibited from dealing with his own. But it is now usual for the 
neutral state to restrain belligerents from bringing their prizes into its 
harbors, except in cases of danger or of want of provisions, and then 
for as short a time as the circumstances of the case will allow; and it is 
impossible not to feel an ardent wish that a practice at once wholesome 
and consistent with principle may speedily be transformed into a duty. 
(Int. Law, 5th ed., p. 618.) 

In Atlay's recent edition of Wheaton the subject is 
also reviewed: 

During the American civil war a captor, who brought his prizes into 
British waters, was to be requested to depart and remove such prizes 
immediately. A vessel bona fide converted into a ship of war was, 
however, not to be deemed a prize. In case of stress of weather, or 
other extreme and unavoidable necessity, the necessary time for re- 
moving the prize was to be allowed. If the prize was not removed by 
the prescribed time, or if the capture was made in violation of British 
jurisdiction, the prize was to be detained until Her Majesty's pleasure 
should be made known. Cargoes were to be subject to the same rules 
as prizes. A subsequent order provided that no ship of war of either 
belligerent should be allowed to remain in a British port for the purpose 
of being dismantled or sold. 

55983—09 5 



66 SEQUESTRATION OF PRIZE. 

During the Franco- German war of 1870-1, armed ships of either party 
were interdicted from carrying prizes made by them into the ports, 
harbors, roadsteads, or waters of the United Kingdom, or any of Her 
Majesty's colonies or possessions abroad. A similar rule was made in 
1898 and 1904. 

While the American civil war was prevailing, France prohibited all 
ships of war or privateers of either party from remaining in her ports 
with prizes for more than twenty-four hours, except in case of immi- 
nent perils of the sea. No prize goods were permitted to be sold in 
French territory. Prussia remained content with ordering her sub- 
jects not to engage in the equipment of privateers, and to obey the 
general rules of international law. The Belgian rule commanded all 
privateers to depart immediately, unless prevented by absolute neces- 
sity. (Wheaton's Int. Law, Atlay, 4th ed., sees. 434d, 434e.) 

There are, however, many differences of opinion as to 
the merits of the prohibition of the entrance and sojourn 
of prize in a neutral port: 

Under the general rule a prize may not only be brought into a neutral 
port, but may also be kept there until duly condemned by a Prize 
Court sitting in the belligerent's own territory. This clearly amounts 
to a permission to make military use of neutral territory, and is only 
justified in that it is granted impartially to both belligerents. 

On the whole it seems likely that the practice of excluding the prizes 
of both sides, except in cases of necessity, will be adhered to in future. 
Such a course is, in fact, almost a necessary corollary of the strict rules 
which either already regulate, or are likely to regulate, the admission 
of belligerent public vessels other than prizes into neutral waters and 
ports in time of war. These rules as to recruitment, coaling, and such 
matters are discussed in detail in Chapter III. 

Speaking generally, it may be said that just as a neutral State's right 
of "inviolability of territory" is overshadowed by its duty of impar- 
tiality, which compels it to protect and enforce that right, so is its 
right of hospitality overshadowed by the duty of preventing its terri- 
tory or ports from being made a theatre of warlike operations by either 
of the belligerents. (Risley, Law of War, 176.) 

Pradier-Fodere states the present practice in regard to 
jurisdiction over prizes as follows: 

C'est generalement au commencement des guerres que se sont con- 
stitutes les tribunaux de prises. Ces tribunaux ne peuvent sieger que 
dans les pays belligerants; leur creation est, en effet, un acte motive" 
par la guerre. Les Etats neutres ne sont consequemment pas appeles a 
en instituer, et peuvent ne pas tolerer que les belligerants exercent 
sur leur territoire la jurisdiction des prises. Les agents consulaires des 
belligerants a l'etranger n'ont plus aujourd'hui le droit de juger les 
prises qui seraient conduites en relache forcee dans les ports neutres de 



OPINIONS OF TEXT WRITEKS. 67 

leur consulat, ils ne peuvent que proceder a l'instruction. Si un Etat 
belligerant avait la pretention de conferer a ses envoyes diplomatiques 
ou a ses consuls pres les Etats neutres, le droit d'exercer une juridiction 
sur les prises, ces Etats auraient done le droit incontestable de s'y 
opposer et de ne tolerer sur leur territoire 1' execution d'aucune mesure 
ordonnee par le belligerant. (8 Droit Int. Public, sec. 3201, p. 764.) 

Dana's note to Wheaton ; s International Law presents 
very clearly the practice in 1866 in regard to the place of 
prize at time of condemnation: 

As it is not necessary to the jurisdiction of a prize court that the prize 
should be in existence, it would seem to be unnecessary that it should 
be within its custody. Yet, for a long time, this was a vexed question 
of international law. Where a prize is not fit for a voyage to a place of 
adjudication, and yet may be of value, it is customary to sell her. The 
statutes of the United States assume, that a captor, or any national 
authority, may sell in a case of necessity, rather than destroy the vessel; 
and that the Government may itself take a prize into its service, in a 
case of belligerent necessity, or if it is unseaworthy for a voyage to a port 
of adjudication. (Act 1864, ch. 174, p. 28.) In the one case it is the 
duty of the captor to send the proceeds of the prize to the prize court, 
and in the other of the Government to deposit the value for adjudica- 
tion in lieu of the prize itself. (Ibid.) It is believed that this prac- 
tice is sanctioned by the law of nations. 

As to a prize in a neutral port, writers seem often to have confounded 
the duty of the captor with the jurisdiction of the court. The duty of 
the captor is to send his prize to a port of his own country, that the 
prize tribunal may have it within its custody, not only for a fairer 
investigation of evidence— often derivable from the vessel and cargo 
itself — but also to diminish the risks of concealment or destruction, by 
the captors, of evidence or property, and to insure a fair "sale for full 
value in case of condemnation, or a more speedy and satisfactory resti- 
tution. The captor must give some reason of necessity for leaving his 
prize in a neutral port, or, as before stated, for not bringing it in. But, 
irrespective of the advantages or disadvantages to claimants or captors, 
on the bare question of the capacity of the court to take cognizance of 
a cause where the prize is not bodily in its custody, and yet is in 
existence, there seems to be now no doubt. (For analogous cases in 
civil proceedings, see Hudson v. Guestier, Cranch, iv, 293; lb., vi, 281; 
and Rose v. Himely, Cranch, iv, 241.) Whether a court will exercise 
its functions in any given case of an absent prize, is a different question, 
and one of discretion, upon circumstances. 

Whether a prize may or may not be taken into or remain in a neutral 
port to await proceedings at home, or for sale by captors, or for any 
other purpose, is a question for the neutral sovereign to decide. Con- 
sular prize courts, in neutral States, are not now recognized by nations. 
The locality of the court must be in the territory of the belligerent. 



68 SEQUESTEATION OF PRTZE. 

This was first decided politically by Washington's Cabinet, in the case 
of the prizes taken by M. Genet's privateers (American State Papers, 
i, 144); and judicially by the Supreme Court, in the Betsey (Dallas, iii, 
6); and afterwards by Sir William Scott, in the Flad Oyen (Rob. i, 
135). It is within the fortunes of war, whether the captor shall be able 
to get his prize into a home port. It is obviously for the interest of 
neutrals to require such a course, and to object to all adjudication on 
absent prizes, except in cases of necessity. 

The modern practice of neutrals prohibits the use of their ports by 
the prizes of a belligerent, except in cases of necessity; and they may 
remain in the ports only for the meeting of the exigency. The necessity 
must be one arising from perils of the seas, or need of repairs for sea- 
worthiness, or provisions and supplies. Increase of armament is pro- 
hibited. The neutral will protect the prize against pursuit from the 
same port for twenty-four hours, and against capture within his waters; 
but, beyond that, the general peril of war, arising from the power or 
vigilance of the other belligerent, does not constitute a necessity which 
the neutral recognizes as justifying a remaining in his port. This rule , 
if adhered to, will prevent the arising of a custom of retaining prizes in 
safety in a neutral port, until they can be condemned in the home port, 
in their absence. But, apart from any such practice of neutrals, it 
seems clear, that to allow prizes to fly to a neutral port, and remain 
there in safety while prize proceedings are going on in a home port, 
would give occasion to nearly all the objections that exist against prize 
courts in neutral ports. It seems, therefore, to be the tendency, if not 
the settled rule, now, that a decree of condemnation will not be passed 
against prizes remaining abroad, unless in case of necessity, or if passed, 
will not be respected by other nations. 

This resume of the opinion in 1866 fairly represented 
American and British opinion at the beginning of the 
twentieth century. 

Instructions in regard to the bringing in of prize. — The 
instructions issued to the commanders of British war 
vessels on April 15, 1854, were as follows: 

The commanders of Her Majesty's ships and vessels of war shall send 
all ships, vessels, and goods which they shall seize and take into such 
port within Her Majesty's dominions, as shall be most convenient for 
them, in order to have the same legally adjudged at the High Court of 
Admiralty of England or in some other admiralty court lawfully author- 
ized to take cognizance of matters of prize. 

The Instructions Complementaires issued by France 
in 1870 contains the following clause: 

14. Envoi de prises dans les ports francais — Les prises sont exclu- 
sivement dirigees sur les ports de France ou des possessions francaises. 
En cas de force majeure seulement, elles peuvent entrer dans les ports 



SENDING IN OF PKTZE. 69 

neutres pour reparation d'avaries ou ravitaillement. Elles n'y sejour- 
nent que le temps necessaire a ces operations. 

17. Prise conduite dans un port etranger — Lorsqu'une prise est con- 
duite dans un port etranger ou elle peut etre admise, le conducteur de 
la prise represente les capteurs dans 1' instruction consulaire. 

18. Refus d 'admission — Presque toutes les puissances assimilent les 
prises aux batiments de guerre des belligerants et ne les admettent pas 
dans leurs ports, si ce n'est en cas de relache forcee, et pour une periode 
de temps tres courte. 

Le conducteur d'une prise doit toujours, en pareil cas, deferer aux 
invitations qui lui sont adressees par le gouvernement du pays ou il se 
trouve. II agit alors au mieux des interets dont il est charge et rend 
compte, sans delai, au ministre de la marine du refus d 'admission 
qu'il a essuye. 

The British regulations issued in 1888 provide: 

298. If the surveying officers report that the vesesl is not in a con- 
dition to be sent into a proper port of adjudication, the commander 
should, if practicable, take her into the nearest neutral port that may 
be willing to admit her. 

299. The commander, however, must bear in mind that he can not 
take the vessel into a neutral port against the will of the local authori- 
ties; and that under no circumstances can proceedings for adjudication 
be instituted in a neutral country. 

300. Both the cruiser and, if admitted, her prize are by the comity 
of nations exempt from the local jurisdiction. 

301. If the vessel is admitted into a neutral port, then, in order that 
proceedings for adjudication may be duly instituted, the commander 
should forward the witnesses, together with the vessel's papers and 
necessary affidavits, in charge of one of the officers of his ship to the 
nearest British prize court. (Manual of Naval Prize Law, p. 85.) 

The following instructions were issued as General 
Order 492, by the Navy Department of the United States 
during the Spanish- American war in 1898: 

Sending in of prizes. 20. Prizes should be sent in for adjudication, 
unless otherwise directed, to the nearest home port in which a prize 
court may be sitting. 

21. The prize should be delivered to the court as nearly as possible 
in the condition in which she was at the time of seizure; and to this 
end her papers should be sealed at the time of seizure and kept in the 
custody of the prize master. Attention is called to articles numbers 
16 and 17 for the government of the United States Navy (Exhibit A). 

22. All witnesses whose testimony is necessary to the adjudication 
of the prize should be detained and sent in with her, and if circum- 
stances permit it is preferable that the officer making the search should 
act as prize master. 



70 SEQUESTRATION OF PRIZE. 

23. As to the delivery of the prize to the judicial authority, consult 
sections 4615, 4616, and 4617, Revised Statutes of 1878 (Exhibit B). 
The papers, including the log book of the prize, are delivered to the 
prize commissioners; the witnesses, to the custody of the United States 
marshal; and the prize itself remains in the custody of the prize master 
until the court issues process directing one of its own officers to take 
charge. 

24. The title to property seized as prize changes only by the decision 
rendered by the prize court. But if the vessel itself, or its cargo, is 
needed for immediate public use, it may be converted to such use, a 
careful inventory and appraisal being made by impartial persons and 
certified to the prize court. 

Provisions in recent neutrality proclamations. — The 
attitude of the leading States of the world in regard to 
the bringing of prize and its sojourn in a neutral port is 
shown in the neutrality proclamations issued during the 
Spanish- American war of 1898 and Russo-Japanese of 
1904. In most cases the terms of the proclamations are 
identical in both wars. 

Brazil, 1898: 

VI. No war ship or privateer shall be permitted to enter and remain, 
with prizes, in our ports or bays during more than twenty-four hours, 
except in case of a forced putting into port, and in no manner shall it 
be permitted to it to dispose of its prizes or of articles coming out of 
them. 

By the words "except in case of a forced putting into port," should 
also be understood that a ship shall not be required to leave port within 
the said time: First. If it shall not have been able to make the prepara- 
tions indispensable to enable it to go to sea without risk of being lost. 
Second. If there should be the same risk on account of bad weather. 
Third. And, finally, if it should be menaced by an enemy. 

In these cases, it shall be for the Government, at its discretion, to de- 
termine, in view of the circumstances, the time within which the 
ship should leave. 

f- VII. Privateers, although they do not conduct prizes, shall not be 
admitted to the ports of the Republic for more than twenty-four hours, 
except in the cases indicated in the preceding section. 

Denmark, 1898: 

Third. The ports and territorial waters of the islands shall be closed 
to the prizes of either belligerent, except when they are found in cases 
of distress. 

Dutch West Indies, 1898: 

Art. 3. The vessels of war or privateers of the belligerents are not 
permitted to enter the ports or roadsteads of the colony with prizes, 



NEUTRALITY PROCLAMATIONS. 71 

except in the case of accidents of the sea or want of provisions. As 
soon as the reasons for their admission have ceased to exist, they must 
depart immediately. They will not be permitted to take on board 
more provisions than they require in order to reach the nearest port of 
the country to which they belong, or that of one of its allies in the war. 
They shall not be supplied with coal so long as they are in possession 
of prizes. If vessels of war chased by the enemy take refuge in the 
territory of the colony, their prizes must be released. 

Art. 4. The sale, exchange, or giving away of prizes or of articles 
taken therefrom, as also of captured goods, is prohibited in the ports, 
the roadsteads, and the territorial waters of the colony. 

Art. 5. Ships and vessels of war, admitted in accordance with arti- 
cles 1,2, and 3, must not remain in the ports or roadsteads of the colony 
longer than therein provided. If, however, ships or vessels of war or 
others belonging to the belligerents should happen to be in the same 
port or roadstead of the colony, an interval of at least twenty-four hours 
must elapse between the departure of a ship or ships, or of a vessel or 
vessels, of one of the belligerents, and the subsequent departure of a 
ship or ships, or of a vessel or vessels, of the other. This interval may 
be lengthened according to circumstances. 

France, 1898: 

The Government of the Republic declares and notifies whomsoever 
it may concern that it has decided to observe a strict neutrality in the 
war which has just broken out between Spain and the United States. 

It considers it to be its duty to remind Frenchmen residing in 
France, in the colonies and protectorates, and abroad, that they must 
refrain from all acts which, committed in violation of French or inter- 
national law, could be considered as hostile to one of the parties, or as 
contrary to a scrupulous neutrality. They are particularly forbidden 
to enroll themselves or to take service either in the army on land or on 
board the ships of war of one or the other of the belligerents, or to con- 
tribute to the equipment or armament of a ship of war. 

The Government decides in addition that no ship of war of either 
belligerent will be permitted to enter and to remain with her prizes 
in the harbors and anchorages of France, its colonies and protectorates, 
for more than twenty-four hours, except in the case of forced delay or 
justifiable necessity. 

No sale of objects gained from prizes shall take place in the said 
harbors and anchorages. 

Great Britain, 1898: 

Rule 4. Armed ships of either belligerent are interdicted from car- 
rying prizes made by them into the ports, harbors, roadsteads, or 
waters of the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, 
or any of Her Majesty's colonies or possessions abroad. 



72 SEQUESTRATION OF PRIZE. 

Italy, laws of April 6, 1864, and June 16, 1895, pub- 
lished with neutrality proclamation of 1898: 
Decree of April 6, 1864: 

Article I. No vessel of war or armed for cruising of any belligerent 
state shall be allowed to enter and remain with prizes in the ports or 
roadsteads of the kingdom, except in the case of arrival under stress. 

Decree of June 16, 1895: 

Art. 12. Foreign ships of war and merchantmen armed for cruising 
are forbidden to bring prizes into, or to arrest and search vessels in, 
the territorial sea or in the sea adjacent to the Italian islands, as well 
as to commit other acts which constitute an offense to the rights of 
state sovereignty. 

Japan, 1898: 

4. No man-of-war or other ships used for warlike purposes, belonging 
to one or the other of the belligerent powers, shall be permitted to take 
any captured vessel into the territorial waters of the Empire, except 
under stress of weather, or on account of destitution of articles necessary 
for navigation, or of disablement. In the last-mentioned case, it is 
not permissible under whatever pretext to land any prisoner of war or 
to dispose of the captured vessel or articles. 

Netherlands, 1898: 

Art. 3. The ships of war or privateers of the parties at war shall not 
enter Netherlands' ports or sea channels with prizes, except in case of 
dangers of the sea or lack of provender. 

As soon as the reason for their admittance has ceased to exist, they 
shall move off. 

They shall not be allowed to ship more provender than is necessary 
to permit of their reaching the nearest port of the country to which the 
ship belongs, or that of one of its allies. 

Coal shall not be supplied them so long as they are in possession of 
prizes. 

If ships of war, pursued by the enemy, seek a refuge within our terri- 
tory, they shall liberate the prizes. 

Art. 4. The sale, exchange, and free disposal of prizes or of articles 
coming thence, as also of booty, is prohibited in the ports, roads, sea 
channels, and in the territorial waters of the Netherlands. 

Art. 5. Ships and vessels of war, which in virtue of articles 1,2, and 
3 are admitted, shall not remain in our ports, roads, or sea channels 
beyond the time therein indicated. 

Portugal, 1898: 

Art. 2. The entrance into the ports and waters mentioned in the 
foregoing article, of privateers and prizes taken by them or by any 
vessels of war of the belligerent powers is likewise forbidden. 



THE QUESTION AT THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 73 

Sole paragraph. — Cases of vis major, in which, according to inter- 
national law, hospitality becomes indispensable, are excepted from 
the provisions of this article, but the sale of articles obtained from 
prizes. shall not be allowed, and vessels having charge of prizes shall 
not be permitted to remain for a longer time than is indispensable for 
them to receive the necessary aid. 

China, 1904: 

32. War vessels and transports of belligerents must not bring ships 
which they have captured into a Chinese port. But should they be 
seeking shelter from a storm or desiring to repair damages or buy 
necessary provisions, and there really be no alternative course, they 
shall be exempted from this prohibition, and immediately upon the 
conclusion of their business they must take their departure. During 
their stay, however, they must not land their captives nor sell captured 
vessels or materials. 

Denmark, 1904: 

Paragraph 3. Privateers will not be permitted to enter Danish har- 
bors nor to lie in a Danish roadstead . 

Prizes must not be brought into a Danish harbor or roadstead except 
in evident case of stress, nor must prizes be condemned or sold therein. 

Netherlands, 1904: 

Art. 3. War ships or privateers shall not be admitted to the harbors 
or outlets of the Netherlands Indies when accompanied by prize, 
except in the case of distress or want of provisions. As soon as the 
reason for their entry is passed they shall leave immediately. They 
shall not ship more provisions than is necessary for them to reach the 
nearest harbor of the country to which they belong, or that of one of 
their allies in the war. So long as they keep prizes coal shall not be 
supplied them. When war ships pursued by the enemy shall seek 
shelter in Netherlands Indies waterways they shall abandon their 
prizes. 

Art. 4. The sale and exchange and distribution of prizes or of 
articles derived thence, as also of booty, shall not be allowed in the 
harbors, roads, in the outlets, and the territorial waters of the Nether- 
lands Indies. 

Sweden, 1904: 

The King has decided — 

3rd. To forbid entrance into the ports and roadsteads of Sweden and 
Norway, except in case of distress, of prizes as well as their condemna- 
tion or sale therein. 

The question of sequestration of prize in a neutral port 
at the Hague Conference, 1907. — Great Britain in the 



74 SEQUESTKATION OF PKIZE. 

propositions presented to the Second Hague Conference 
in 1907 did not favor the admission of prize within neu- 
tral jurisdiction. 

(26) Une puissance neutre ne pourra' permettre sciemment a un 
belligerant d'amener une prise dans sa juridiction que si la prise a 
court de combustibles ou de provisions ou si elle se trouvait en peril 
en raison de son innavigabilite ou de mauvais etat de la mer. La 
puissance neutre ne permettra pas sciemment a une prise de faire des 
chargements de munitions, de combustibles ou de provisions ou de 
reparer ses avaries au dela de ce qui serait necessaire pour lui permettre 
de gagner le port le plus proche du pays belligerant: la puissance neutre 
devra notifier a la prise qu'elle ait a partir aussitot que possible apres 
avoir effectue les reparations necessaires. 

(27) Toute prise belligerante amenee dans des eaux neutres pour 
echapper a la poursuite de l'ennemi sera relachee avec ses officiers 
et son equipage par la puissance neutre mais 1' equipage mis a bord 
de la prise par le capteur sera interne. 

It was argued at the Second Hague Conference that 
the granting of the right of sequestration of a captured 
neutral vessel in a neutral port would remove the temp- 
tation to destroy the captured vessel if from remote- 
ness or other reason it is difficult to send the vessel to 
a home port. The American and British practice has 
been to release a neutral vessel that could not for any 
reason be brought to a prize court. 

Sir Ernest Satow, of the British delegation, said of this 
Article 23 of the Convention concerning the Rights and 
Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War: 

L'article en question ne fait aucune mention de la difference fonda- 
mentale existant entre les prises ennemies et les prises neutres. 

Le droit international reconnait au belligerant le droit de couler 
les navires marchands de l'ennemi, la capture les ayant rendu la 
propriete de l'Etat capteur qui peut, en consequence, en disposer a 
son gre. S'il les coule, lui seul en supporte la perte, le proprietaire 
ayant ete depossede par le fait meme de la capture. Permettre en 
consequence a un belligerant de conduire une prise ennemie dans un 
port neutre, c'est lui accorder la faculte de se servir de ce port pour son 
avantage particulier. 

En ce qui concerne les prises neutres, l'adoption de Particle 23 
impliquerait l'abandon du principe qui est notre et en vertu duquel 
ces prises devraient etre relachees. 

L'article 23 a ete propose, si je ne me trompe, par la Delegation ita- 
lienne dans l'espoir que son adoption faciliterait la retraite a ceux qui 
soutiennent le droit de detruire les prises neutres dans certains cas de 



ATTITUDE OF THE UNITED STATES. 75 

force majeure. Puisque les deux comites de redaction sont ici en 
presence, il n'y a rien d'irregulier a citer ce qui a ete dit au sein du 
Comite de la Quatrieme Commission. Dans la seance du 28 aout un 
des Delegues a dit "qu'il est certain que la proposition aura pour 
effet de restreindre les cas ou la destruction sera une mesure necessaire, 
mais elle ne les fera pas tous disparaitre, il restera en particulier celui 
de la proximite de l'ennemi et celui du chargement de contrabande 
absolue." Un autre a dit que "la proposition • ne sumra pas a faire 
disparaitre la destruction des prises neutres: 1°. parce qu'il n'est pas 
sur que les ports neutres acceptent d'etre sequestres; 2°. parcequ'il 
y a des cas ou il est impossible d'amener le navire dans le port neutre; 
par exemple si le mauvais etat du batiment en rend la conduite impos- 
sible oil si l'approche des forces ennemies ou d'autres raisons en font 
craindre la reprise ou si 1' equipage du vaisseau de guerre est insuffi- 
sant pour amariner convenablement le batiment. 

Ces deux declarations, qui ne manquent pas de clarte, demontrent 
le peu d'avantage qu'on retirerait de l'adoption de Particle en question. 
De plus, il y aurait danger pour le neutre a admettre les prises dans ses 
ports des belligerants. En effet un belligerant ne verra pas avec in- 
difference interner les prises faites par l'ennemi dans le port d'un 
neutre. II est done a craindre que d'une telle situation ne s'ensuivent 
des complications graves entre l'Etat neutre et l'Etat belligerant qui 
croirait avoir a se plaindre. 

II est vrai que les auteurs du projet laissent au neutre la faculte de 
fermer ses ports aux prises des belligerants, mais e'est la une liberte 
d' action dont il lui sera bien difficile et dangereux de se servir et que, 
par consequent, il ferait bien de ne pas exercer. Je me vois done dans 
la necessite de voter contre 1' article 23, meme au risque de perdre 
l'appui de la Delegation italienne pour notre proposition au sujet de 
la destruction des prises neutres. 

In the vote upon this article 23, Germany, Belgium, 
Brazil, France, Italy, Netherlands, Russia, Servia, and 
Sweden favored the article; Great Britain and Japan voted 
against it; and the United States, Austria-Hungary, Den- 
mark, Spain, Norway, and Turkey refrained from voting. 

Attitude of the United States as to sequestration of prize 
in a neutral port. — Article 23 of the Convention concern- 
ing the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval 
War, The Hague, 1907, was as follows: 

A neutral power may allow prizes to enter its ports and roadsteads, 
whether under convoy or not, when they are brought there to be se- 
questrated pending the decision of a prize court. It may have the 
prize taken to another of its ports. 

If the prize is convoyed by a war ship, the prize crew may go on 
board the convoying ship. 

If the prize is not under convoy, the prize crew are left at liberty. 



1 



76 SEQUESTRATION OF PRIZE. 

The report of the delegates of the United States to the 
Hague Conference of 1907 briefly summarizes the Ameri- 
can attitude toward such a rule and shows its possibilities 
of abuse: 

Articles 21 to 25 relate to the admission of prizes to neutral ports. 
Articles 21 and 22 seem to be unobjectionable. Article 23 authorizes the 
neutral to permit prizes to enter its ports and to remain there pending 
action on their cases by the proper prize courts. This is objectionable, 
for the reason that it involves a neutral in participation in the war to 
the extent of giving asylum to a prize which the belligerent may not 
be able to conduct to a home port. This article represents the revival 
of an ancient abuse and should not be approved. In this connection 
it is proper to note that a proposition absolutely forbidding the de- 
struction of a neutral prize, which was vigorously supported by Eng- 
land and the United States, failed of adoption. Had the proposition 
been adopted, there would have been some reason for authorizing 
such an asylum to be afforded in the case of neutral prizes. 

The United States ratified the Convention concerning 
the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, 
on April 17, 1908, with the following reservations: 

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), 
That the Senate advise and consent to the adherence of the United 
States to a convention adopted by the Second International Peace 
Conference held at The Hague from June 15 to October 18, 1907, con- 
cerning the rights and duties of neutral powers in naval war, reserving 
and excluding however Article XXIII thereof, which is in the follow- 
ing words: "A neutral power may allow prizes to enter its ports and 
roadsteads, whether under convoy or not, when they are brought there 
to be sequestrated pending the decision of a prize court. It may have 
the prize taken to another of its ports. If the prize is convoyed by a 
war ship, the prize crew may go on board the convoying ship. If the 
prize is not under convoy, the prize crew are left at liberty." 

Resolved, further, That the United States adheres to this convention 
with the understanding that the last clause of Article III implies the 
duty of a neutral power to make the demand therein mentioned for 
the return of a ship captured within jurisdiction and no longer within 
that jurisdiction. 

Article XXVIII of the Convention concerning the 
Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War pro- 
vides that — 

The provisions of the present convention do not apply except to 
the contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties 
to the convention. 



.ATTITUDE OF THE UNITED STATES. 77 

As regards Article XXIII allowing sequestration of 
prize in a neutral port pending decision by a prize court, 
the United States is not a contracting party and there- 
fore the convention does not apply. As the convention 
applies "only if all the belligerents are parties to the con- 
vention, ' ' it would not be applicable so far as France is 
concerned even if France and State X were both parties 
to the convention. In this question it would therefore 
be, in the words of the convention, "expedient to take 
into consideration the general principles of the law of 
nations." 

" Taking into consideration the general principles of the 
law of nations," as the preliminary articles of the conven- 
tion advise, it would be possible, in accord with certain 
opinions and precedents, to take the captured vessel into 
the French port to be sequestrated, provided France al- 
lowed such action. The convention by Article XXIII does 
not make it obligatory to allow prize to be thus brought in, 
but only permits a state to grant the privilege. In case of 
such grant, it would be directly contrary to the spirit of 
the preceding articles, which provide — 

Article XXI. 

A prize may only be brought into a neutral port on account of unsea- 
worthiness, stress of weather, or want of fuel or provisions. 

It must leave as soon as the circumstances which justified its entry 
are at an end. If it does not, the neutral power must order it to leave 
at once; should it fail to obey, the neutral power must employ the 
means at its disposal to release it with its officers and crew and to intern 
the prize crew. 

Article XXII. 

A neutral power must, similarly, release a prize brought into one of 
its ports under circumstances other than those referred to in 
Article XXI. 

The United States is a party to the above articles, 
but not to Article XXIII, which permits sequestration. 
Articles XXI and- XXII may therefore be taken as 
showing the attitude of the United States Government 
in regard to the sending in of prize. The commander 
of the war ship making the capture of the merchant 



78 SEQUESTRATION" OF PRIZE. 

ship should not therefore take the merchant ship into 
a neutral port to be sequestrated pending the action of 
the prize court. He should observe the principles fol- 
lowed in recent United States practice, as shown in General 
Order 492 of the Nav}^ Department in 1898, and in the 
action of the Government in adherence to the Convention 
concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in 
Naval War. 

CONCLUSION. 

' The commander should not take the prize into French 
port to be sequestrated pending prize proceedings unless 
instructed. He should act in accord with General 
Orders 492 of the Navy Department, 1898. 

20. Prize should be sent in for adjudication, unless otherwise 
directed, to the nearest home port in which a prize court may be 
sitting. 



Situation IV. 

COALING IN NEUTRAL WATERS. 

While there is war between States X and Y and other 
States are neutral, a war vessel of State X coals from a 
collier just off the coast within three miles of State Z. 
A month later the same war vessel enters a port of State Z 
and requests a reasonable supply of coal. This is refused 
on the ground that the vessel has taken coal within the 
waters of State Z within three months. 

Is the contention of State Z correct ? 

SOLUTION. 

The contention of State Z is correct. 

NOTES ON SITUATION IV. 

Wording of the Hague Convention respecting the Rights 
and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War. — It has been 
suggested that the wording of this convention in articles 
18, 19, and 20 gives rise to the opinion that what a 
belligerent may do within neutral waters will depend 
upon the nature of the control which, the neutral may be 
exercising over the waters, i. e., that certain actions 
might be prohibited in the ports which would be per- 
mitted in the roadsteads; that certain actions would be 
prohibited in the roadsteads which would be allowed in 
outer territorial waters. 

This opinion is based on the decreasing area of pro- 
hibition mentioned in the successive articles. 

The prohibition in Article XVIII of this convention is 
comprehensive. 

Belligerent war ships may not make use of neutral ports, roadsteads, 
or territorial waters for replenishing or increasing their supplies of 
war material or their armament, or for completing their crews. 

The inclusion of the words ." territorial waters " was at 
the suggestion of the British delegate in order to conform 
to the second rule of the treaty of Washington and 
shows that the prohibition was intended to be general. 

79 



80 COALING IN NEUTRAL WATERS. 

The prohibition in Article XIX is less extended and 
extends to " neutral ports or roadsteads." 

Art. XIX. Belligerent war ships may only revictual in neutral 
ports or roadsteads to complete their supplies up to amount usual in 
time of peace. 

Similarly these vessels may only ship sufficient fuel to enable them 
to reach the nearest port of their country. They may, however, fill 
up their bunkers built to carry fuel, when in neutral countries which 
have adopted this method of determining the amount of fuel to be 
supplied. 

If, in accordance with the law of the neutral power, the ships are 
not supplied with coal within twenty-four hours of their arrival, the 
permissible duration of their stay is extended by twenty-four hours. 

The prohibition in Article XX extends merely to such 
ships as have taken coal a in a port belonging to a neutral 
power." 

Belligerent war ships which have shipped fuel in a port belonging 
to a neutral power may not within the succeeding three months 
replenish their supply in a port of the same power. 

As M. Hagerup pointed out at the Second Hague Con- 
ference in 1907, there is a difference between the waters 
within the jurisdiction of a State and the ports of the 
state : 

lis existent entre les ports et les eaux territoriales des differences de 
fait et de droit. 

Les differences de fait se font valoir et quant au contrdle et quant 
aux mesures de reaction qu'il est possible d'y employer. 

lis peuvent y avoir des pays qui ont un littoral tres etendu, peu 
peuple et entoure des lies et des rochers, comme la Norvege par exemple ; 
il est evident que l'Etat ne pourra dans des eaux territoriales comme 
celles-ci exercer aucun controle efficace. 

Les ports sont soumis entierement a la juridiction et a la souve- 
rainete' de l'Etat qui peut en interdire l'entree a tous les navires. 

Pour les eaux territoriales, au contraire, le passage inoffensif des 
navires est permis meme en temps de guerre. 

L'etendue d'un port est bien definie; il n'y a aucun doute la-dessus; 
il n'est pas ainsi pour l'etendue des eaux territoriales, sur laquelle il 
n'y a pas d'accord general. Cette derniere incertitude existe du reste 
dans le droit et dans le fait. 

Ces differences doivent n^cessairement exercer en temps de guerre 
une influence sur le regime auquel doivent §tre soumis les ports et les 
eaux territoriales. 

Cela est surtout Evident pour ce qui concerne les devoirs des neutres. 
Si l'on peut prescrire pour les eaux territoriales egalement que pour 






'naval WAK COLLEGE DISCUSSION, 1908. 81 

les ports neutres, que les belligerants ne doivent pas se servir d'eux 
pour ses operations militaires, les consequences pour les neutres d'une 
infraction a cette regie ne peuvent etre les memes dans les deux cas. 
Si un neutre tolere qu'un des belligerants dispose de ses ports, ce sera 
une violation de la neutralite. Mais on ne saurait dire le meme du 
seul fait que le neutre n'a pu empecher le belligerant de se servir de 
ses eaux. D'abord le neutre qui veut proteger ses eaux se heurtera 
dans beaucoup de cas a l'incertitude de l'etendue des eaux territoriales. 

Ensuite: Les moyens pour empecher une telle violation de la mer 
territoriale sont beaucoup plus difficiles a trouver que pour les ports. 

D'autres differences: Les regies sur la fixation d'un delai pour le 
sejour d'un navire de guerre dans un port neutre ne peuvent pas etre 
etablies pour les eaux territoriales. II est bien difficile de fixer le 
moment ou le navire entre dans les eaux territoriales ou en sort. (3 e 
Commission, 2 e sous-commission, l er aout 1907.) 

Naval War College discussion, 190ft. — The general sub- 
ject of the supply of coal in neutral ports was considered 
in the conferences upon international law at this Naval 
War College in 1906. The summary of the discussions 
is as follows: 

The proposition to limit the supply to the amount necessary to take 
the ship to the nearest port of her home country, which has been a form 
often used and was that approved by the Institute of International Law 
in 1898, leaves much to be desired. The nearest port may not be in 
the direction in which the vessel may be voyaging, or if it is it may not 
be a port suitable for the entrance of such a vessel. The gradual change 
in recent years has shown that this formula is not sufficient. Such 
words as the following have been added in certain proclamations: 
"Or to some nearer neutral destination," "or to some nearer named 
neutral destination," or that coal shall not be supplied to "a belligerent 
fleet proceeding either to the seat of war or to any position or positions 
on the line of route with the object of intercepting neutral ships on 
suspicion of carrying contraband of war. ' ' 

In most declarations there has been a provision against allowing a 
neutral port to become a base for equipping a belligerent's vessel with 
coal, oil, or other supplies. By "base," as thus used, is meant a place 
to which the vessel frequently returns. The idea of "frequent," as 
thus used, is generally covered by the prohibition against taking a. 
new supply of coal from the same neutral port till after the expiration 
of a period of three months. Some states, however, allow such supply 
within three months provided permission is obtained from the proper 
authority. 

It would seem to be evident that while the supplying of coal to a 

belligerent is not prohibited by international law though it has been 

prohibited in many proclamations, yet the supplying of coal at such 

frequent intervals as would make the neutral port a base is generally 

55983—09 6 



82 COALING IN NEUTRAL WATERS. 

regarded as prohibited by international law, as is practically admitted 
in the reply of France to Japan in 1905. 

It seems to be the general opinion that the supply of fuel, etc., to 
belligerents should be somewhat restricted in neutral ports. 

There are differences of opinion as to the extent of necessary restric- 
tions. Doubtless there would be need of special restriction in special 
cases. Some degree of freedom should remain to the neutral in making 
provisions for special conditions. It would seem reasonable that the 
neutral should not afford a greater supply of coal or oil even for lubri- 
cating purposes than an amount sufficient to carry the vessel to the 
home port. The purpose is to guard against the furnishing of supplies 
for hostile uses and at the same time not to intern a vessel of a bellig- 
erent which may enter a neutral port. It would probably be desirable 
to restrict the supply of oil for purposes of fuel which would be included 
under the general head of fuel and for lubricating purposes which makes 
necessary specific mention of oil. 

Considering opinions, precedents, and practice, the following seems a 
reasonable conclusion: The supply of fuel or oil within a neutral port 
to vessels in belligerent service in no case shall exceed what is necessary 
to make the total amount on board sufficient to reach the nearest un- 
blockaded port of the belligerent vessel's own state or some nearer named 
destination. • 

The supply may be subject to such other regulations as the neutral 
may deem expedient. 

Neutrality proclamations. — The declaration of neutral- 
ity of the United States in the Russo-Japanese war of 
1904 was in accord with the declaration in the Franco- 
Prussian war of 1870: 

No ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall be permitted, 
while in any port, harbor, roadstead, or waters within the jurisdiction 
of the United States, to take in any supplies except provisions and such 
other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew, and 
except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel, if 
without any sail power, to the nearest port of her own country; or in 
case the vessel is rigged to go under sail, and may also be propelled by 
steam power, then with half the quantity of coal which she would be 
entitled to receive, if dependent upon steam alone, and no coal shall 
be again supplied to any such ship of war or privateer in the same or 
any other port, harbor, roadstead, or waters of the United States, with- 
out special permission, until after the expiration of three months from 
the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within the 
waters of the United States, unless such ship of war or privateer shall, 
since last thus supplied, have entered a port of the government to which 
she belongs. (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 34.) 

The proclamation of Sweden and Norway stated that 
the King had decided to accord war vessels of the belliger- 



NEUTRALITY PROCLAMATIONS. 83 

ents entrance to his ports provided they conformed to 
certain rules: 

In regard to coal, they can only purchase the necessary quantity to 
reach the nearest nonblockaded national port, or with the consent of 
the authorities of the King, a neutral destination. Without special 
permission the same vessel will not be permitted to again purchase coal 
in a port or roadstead of Sweden or Norway within three months after 
the last purchase. (Foreign Relations U. S. 1904, p. 31.) 

The rules for the maintenance of neutrality in the 
Netherlands Indies in 1904 restrict the taking in of fuel: 

Sufficient provender may be shipped as is necessary for the main- 
tenance of the crew, while the stock of fuel may not exceed an amount 
necessary for the vessel to reach the nearest harbor of the country to 
which the vessel belongs or of one of its allies in the war. The same 
vessel shall not be allowed to return a second time for fuel within a 
period of three months from the time of the first supply, except special 
authorization be given thereto. 

In the case of privateers more stringent regulations 
were imposed: 

They shall not take in more provisions than is required for them to 
reach the nearest harbor of the country to which they belong or that of 
one of their allies in the war, and not more coal than is necessary to pro- 
vide for their requirements for a period of twenty-four hours, sailing 
at a maximum of three English miles an hour. Within a period of three 
months they shall not be provided with coal a second time. (Foreign 
Relations U. S. 1904, p. 28.) 

The Danish neutrality proclamation issued in 1904 
provided that: 

So much coal only may be taken in as may be necessary to carry such 
vessels to the nearest nonblockaded home port; or, with permission 
from the proper Danish authorities, to some other neutral destination. 
No ship will be permitted, without special authorization, to coal in any 
Danish harbor or roadstead more than once in the course of three 
months. (Foreign Relations, U. S. 1904, p. 22.) 

The proclamations, decrees, orders, etc., issued during 
the Spanish- American war in 1898 were in most instances 
similar to those issued in 1904. Those issued in 1898 
varied somewhat in character. The range is shown in 
the following: 

Bermuda, proclamation, May 6, 1898: 

Rule C. No supplies will be allowed to any such ship beyond pro- 
visions and subsistence for crew necessary for immediate use and no 



84 COALING IN NEUTRAL WATERS. 

coal except for the specific purpose (to be satisfactorily shown) of en- 
abling her to proceed, direct to the nearest port of her own country or 
other named nearer neutral destination, nor will coal be supplied to the 
same ship in any British port twice within three months. 

Brazil, circular, April 29, 1898: 

X. The movements of the belligerent will be under the supervision 
of the customs authorities from the time of entrance until that of de- 
parture, for the purpose of verifying the proper character of the things 
put on board. 

XI. The ships of belligerents shall take material for combustion only 
for the continuance of their voyage. 

Furnishing coal to ships which sail the seas near Brazil for the purpose 
of making prizes of an enemy's vessels or prosecuting any other kind of 
hostile operations is prohibited. 

A ship which shall have once received material for combustion in our 
ports shall not be allowed a new supply there, unless there shall have 
elapsed a reasonable interval which makes it probable that said ship 
has returned after having finished its voyage to a foreign port. 

XII. It will not be permitted to either of the belligerents to receive 
in the ports of the Republic goods coming directly for them in the ships 
of any nation whatever. 

This means that the belligerents may not seek ports en route and on 
account of an unforeseen necessity, while having the intention of 
remaining in the vicinity of the coasts of Brazil, taking thus beforehand 
the necessary precautions to furnish themselves with the means of con- 
tinuing their enterprises. The tolerance of such an abuse would be 
equivalent to allowing our ports to serve as a base of operations for the 
belligerents. 

Italy, decree of April 6, 1864: 

Art. X. Nothing shall be supplied to belligerent ships of war or 
cruisers excepting provisions, commodities, and things for repairs, sim- 
ply necessary for the subsistence of their crews and the safety of their 
voyage. Such belligerent ships of war or cruisers as wish to resupply 
themselves with coal shall not receive that supply until twenty-four 
hours after their arrival. 

Japan, imperial ordinance, No. 87 : 

Art. 6. The men-of-war and other ships used for warlike purposes 
belonging to one or the other of the belligerent powers may get, in the 
ports of the Empire, supplies of articles necessary for their crews, also 
coal and other things indispensable to navigation, as well as of mate- 
rials needed for repairs; but the quantity of such supplies should never 
exceed that which will be necessary for the purpose of taking such men- 
of-war and such other ships to the nearest port of their own country. 
Any of such men-of-war or such other ships which has once obtained a 
supply of coal shall not be permitted to get another supply until after 
the lapse of three full months. 



NEUTKALITY PKOCLAMATIONS. 85 

Netherlands, Order No. 2, respecting neutrality: 

Article I. * * * Provender may be shipped so far as is necessary 
for the wants of the crew, while the store of coal shall only be supple- 
mented sufficiently to allow the ship or vessel to reach the nearest port 
of the country to which it belongs, or that of one of its allies in the war. 

The same ship may not be provided a second time with coal, except 
after a lapse of three months from the first lading, unless speci al per 
mission be given. 

According to the British proclamation: 

Rule 3. No ship of war of either belligerent shall hereafter be per- 
mitted, while in any such port, roadstead, or waters subject to the ter- 
ritorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, to take in any supplies, except pro- 
visions and such other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of 
her crew, and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry 
such vessel to the nearest port of her own country, or to some nearer 
destination, and no coal shall again be supplied to any such ship of war 
in the same or any other port, roadstead, or waters subject to the terri- 
torial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, without special permission, until 
after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may 
have been last supplied to her within British waters as aforesaid. 

This rule was amended to read "nearer named neutral 
destination," in 1904. 

Certain explanations of Rule 3 were later issued. 

It must, however, be borne in mind that the reason for the practice 
of admitting belligerent vessels of war into neutral ports arises out of 
the exigencies of life at sea and the hospitality which it is customary 
to extend to vessels of friendly' powers, and that this principle does not 
extend to enabling such vessels to utilize a neutral port directly for the 
purpose of hostile operations. The rule above quoted is not to be 
understood as having any application to the case of a belligerent fleet 
proceeding either to the seat of war, or to a position or positions on the 
line of route, with the object of intercepting neutral vessels on suspicion 
of carrying contraband of war. Such fleet cannot be permitted to 
make use in any way of a British port for the purpose of coaling, either 
directly from the shore, or from colliers accompanying the fleet, whether 
the vessels of the fleet present themselves at the port at the same time 
or successively. His Majesty's Government further direct that the 
same practice be pursued with reference to single belligerent war-ves- 
sels, if it be clear that they are proceeding for the purpose of belligerent 
operations as above defined. This is not to be applied to the case of a 
vessel putting in on account of actual distress at sea. 

The amount of coal which might be supplied to a belligerent warship 
was defined as so much as may be sufficient to carry such vessel to the 
nearest port of her own country, or to some nearer named neutral desti- 
nation — a formula which would, e. g., entitle a Russian ship of war to 
take on board, say at Aden, an amount of coal sufficient to carry her to 



86 COALING IN NEUTRAL WATERS. 

Vladivostok. The practice recognized under this rule, which is based 
upon considerations of hospitality, ought not, in the opinion of His 
Majesty's Government, to be extended so as to enable such vessels to 
make use of a neutral port directly for the purpose of hostile operations. 
Instructions had accordingly been given that the rule is not to be taken 
as applying to a belligerent fleet, or to vessels proceeding to the seat of 
war itself, or to stations from which operations connected with the war 
might be conducted. (Lord Lansdowne to Sir C. Hardinge, August 
16, 1904.) 

In the proclamation of the governor of Malta of August 
12, 1904, there is a reference to and interpretation of 
the British rule No. 3, of the proclamation No. 1 of Feb- 
ruary 12, 1904— 

Inasmuch as it refers to the extent of coal which may be supplied to 
belligerent ships of war in British ports during the present war, shall 
not be understood as having any application in case of a belligerent 
fleet proceeding either to the seat of war or to any position or positions 
on the line of route with the object of intercepting neutral ships on 
suspicion of carrying contraband of war, and that such fleet shall not be 
permitted to make use in any way of any port, roadstead, or waters 
subject to the jurisdiction of His Majesty for the purpose of coaling, 
either directly from the shore or from colliers accompanying such fleet, 
whether vessels of such fleet present themselves to any such port or 
roadstead or within the said waters at the same time or successively; 
and second, that the same practice shall be pursued with reference to 
single belligerent ships of war proceeding for purpose of belligerent 
operations as above defined; provided that this is not to be applied to 
the case of vessels putting in on account of actual distress at sea, in 
which case the provision of rule No. 3 as published by proclamation 
No. 1 of the 12th February, 1904, shall be applicable. 

It will be observed that this proclamation specifically 
announces the principle " that belligerent ships of war are 
admitted into neutral ports in view of exigencies of life at 
sea and the hospitality which it is customary to extend 
to vessels of friendly powers;" and that "this principle 
does not extend to enable belligerent ships of war to 
utilize neutral ports directly for the purpose of hostile 
operations." It is not the intention to extend hospitality 
to belligerent vessels proceeding to the seat of war or 
advancing for the purpose of belligerent operations, 
whether against other belligerents or against neutrals 
carrying contraband or otherwise involved in the war. 
In short, the doctrine would seem to involve the privilege 



NEUTRALITY PROCLAMATIONS. 87 

of coaling for navigation to a home port, but no such privi- 
lege in order to reach the area of warfare or for direct 
hostile operations. This position taken by Great Britain 
is an advanced one. As was said in the discussions of 
this Naval War College in 1905 (Topic IX, p. 158) : 

It can not reasonably be expected that a neutral power will permit 
its own ports to be used as sources of supplies and coal, using which 
the belligerent vessel or fleet may set forth to seize the same neutral's- 
commerce or interrupt its trade. 

Professor Holland raises the question of supply of coal 
to a belligerent ship, and briefly summarizes the British 
practice as follows: 

May she also replenish her stock of coal? To ask this question may 
obviously, under modern conditionsand under certain circumstances, be- 
equivalent to asking whether belligerent ships may receive in neutral 
harbors what will enable them to seek out their enemy, and to maneuver 
while attacking him. It was first raised during the American civil war, 
in the first year of which the Duke of Newcastle instructed colonial 
governors that "with respect to the supplying in British jurisdiction of 
articles ancipitis usus (such, for instance, as coal), there is no ground for 
any interference, whatever on the part of colonial authorities." But, 
by the following year, the question had been more maturely considered, 
and Lord John Russell directed, on January 31, 1862, that the ships of 
war of either belligerent should be supplied with "so much coal only as 
may be sufficient to carry such vessel to the nearest port of her own 
country, or to some nearer destination." Identical language was em- 
ployed by Great Britain in 1870, 1885, and 1898, but in the British in- 
structions of February 10, 1904, the last phrase was strengthened so as 
to run: " Or to some nearer named neutral destination." The Egyptian 
proclamation of February 12, 1904, superadds the requirement of a 
written declaration by the belligerent commander as to the destination 
of his ship and the quantity of coal remaining on board of her, and 
Mr. Balfour, on July 11, informed the House of Commons that "direc- 
tions had been given for requiring an engagement that any belligerent 
man-of-war, supplied with coal to carry her to the nearest port of her 
own nation, would in fact proceed to that port direct." Finally, a still 
stronger step was taken by the Government of this country, necessi- 
tated by the hostile advance toward eastern waters of the Russian 
Pacific squadron. Instructions were issued to all British ports, on 
August 8, which, reciting that "belligerent ships of war are admitted 
into neutral ports in view of the exigencies of life at sea, and the hospi- 
tality which is customary to extend to vessels of friendly powers; but 
the principle does not extend to enable belligerent ships of war to 
utilize neutral ports directly for the purpose of hostile operations," goes 
on to direct that the rule previously promulgated, " inasmuch as it refers 



88 COALING IN NEUTEAL WATERS. 

to the extent of coal which may be supplied to belligerent ships of war 
in British ports during the present war, shall not be understood as hav- 
ing any application to the case of a belligerent fleet proceeding either 
to the seat of war, or to any position or positions on the line of route, 
with the object of intercepting neutral ships on suspicion of carrying 
contraband of war, and that such fleets shall not be permitted to make 
use, in any way, of any port, roadstead, or waters, subject to the juris- 
diction of His Majesty, for the purpose of coaling either directly from the 
shore or from colliers accompanying such fleet, whether vessels of such 
fleet present themselves to such port or roadstead, or within the said 
waters, at the same time or successively; and that the same practice 
shall be pursued with reference to single belligerent ships of war pro- 
ceeding for the purpose of belligerent operations, as above defined, pro- 
vided that this is not to be applied to the case of vessels putting in on 
^account of actual distress at sea." (83 Foitnightly Review, 1905, 
p. 795. 

Provisions of the Hague Convention, 1907. — Articles 
of the Hague Convention concerning the Rights and 
Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War provide that — 

Art. XVIII. Belligerent war ships may not make use of neutral 
ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters for replenishing or increasing 
their supplies of war material or their armament, or for completing their 
crews. 

Art. XIX. Belligerent war ships may only revictual in neutral ports 
or roadsteads to bring up their supplies to the peace standard. 

Similarly these vessels may only ship sufficient fuel to enable them to 
reach the nearest port in their own country. They may, on the other 
hand, fill up their bunkers built to carry fuel, when in neutral countries 
which have adopted this method of determining the amount of fuel to be 
supplied. 

If, in accordance with the law of the neutral power, the ships are not 
supplied with coal within twenty-four hours of their arrival, the per- 
missible duration of their stay is extended by twenty-four hours. 

Art. XX. Belligerent war ships which have shipped fuel in a port 
belonging to a neutral power may not within the succeeding three 
months replenish their supply in a port of the same power. 

Certain articles of the Hague Convention concerning 
the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War 
extend their regulations in specific terms to " neutral 
ports, roadsteads, and territorial waters." This Article 
XIX regulating the supply of fuel mentions only "neutral 
ports and roadsteads.'' 

Report of American delegation. — The report of the 
United States delegation to the Second International 



DISCUSSIONS AT THE HAGUE, 1907. 89 

Peace Conference at The Hague regards article 19 as u an 
extremely important one/' and in commenting on 
articles 19 and 20 says: 

The great powers of the world are susceptible of being grouped into 
two classes in the matter of neutral policy. England, having great 
naval power, supplemented by an extensive system of coaling stations 
and commercial ports, has always favored and practiced a policy of 
strict neutrality. France, less powerful at sea, having few naval 
stations and with few distant colonial possessions, has been more liberal 
in the enforcement of its neutral obligations, and has allowed consider- 
able aid to be extended to belligerent vessels in its ports. As England 
has treated both belligerents with impartial strictness, France has 
treated them with impartial liberality. With this view Russia and, to 
some extent, Germany and Austria, are in sympathy. As has been 
seen, the policy of the United States has been in the main similar to 
that of Great Britain. 

In the matter of coal, the English delegation proposed that the 
amount of coal which a belligerent vessel might obtain in a neutral port 
should be restricted to quarter bunkers. The substantial operation of 
this rule would be that any public armed vessel that entered a neutral 
port short of coal would have to be interned until the close of the war, 
as it would be impossible, in a majority of cases, to reach a home port 
with so meager an allowance of coal as quarter-bunker capacity. This 
proposition was rejected, as were a nunSfoer of suggestions based upon 
bunker capacity, condition of bottoms, etc., which were so complicated 
as to be practically impossible in their application. 

The result was to reach the compromise which is stated in article 19. 
as to which it may be said that the liberal States have yielded rather 
more than those whose policy is one of strict neutrality. The article 
represents, it would seem, the most satisfactory conclusion possible for 
the conference to reach. 

Propositions and discussions at The Hague, 1907. — Two 
questions were before the second subcommission of the 
third commission of the Second Hague Conference in 1907, 
and to these questions certain states gave replies. 

XII. Dans quelle mesure pourront-ils s'y approvisionner de vivres et de 
charbonf 

ESPAGNE. 

Art. 5. Les vaisseaux belligerants ne pourront, pendant leur sejour 
dans les ports ou les eaux neutres, charger du materiel de guerre, ni 
aucun approvisionnement de nature a augmenter leur force militaire. 
lis pourront, toutefois, se pourvoir des vivres et du charbon neces- 
saires pour atteindre le port le plus rapproche" de leur pays ou un port 
neutre plus proche encore. 



90 COALING IN NEUTRAL WATERS. 

GRANDE -B RET AGNE. 

(17) Une puissance neutre ne devra pas permettre sciemment a un 
navire de guerre d'un belligerant se trouvant dans sa juridiction de 
prendre a bord des munitions, vivres ou combustibles si ce n'est dans 
le cas oil les munitions, vivres ou combustibles deja a bord du navire 
ne lui sumraient pas pour gagner le port le plus proche de son propre 
pays: la quantite de munitions, vivres ou combustibles charges a bord 
du navire dans la juridiction neutre ne devra en aucun cas depasser le 
complement necessaire pour lui permettre de gagner le-port le plus 
proche de son propre pays, 

JAPON. 

IV. Les navires belligerants ne pourront dans les ports ou les eaux 
neutres, ni augmenter leurs forces de guerre, ni faire de reparations sauf 
celles qui seront indispensables a la securite de leur navigation, ni 
charger aucun approvisionnement excepte du charbon et des provisions 
suffisant avec ce qui reste encore a bord pour les mettre a meme d'at- 
teindre a une vitesse 6conomique le port le plus rapproche de leur 
pays ou une destination neutre plus proche encore. 

RUSSIE. 

VII. II est interdit aux batiments de guerre des Etats belligerants, 
pendant leur sejour dans les ports et les eaux territoriales neutres, 
d'augmenter, a l'aide de ressources puisees a terre, leur materiel de 
guerre ou de renforcer leur equipage. 

Toutefois les batiments susmentionnes pourront se pourvoir de 
vivres, denrees, appro visionnements, charbon et moyens de reparation 
n^cessaires a la subsistance de leur equipage ou a la continuation de 
leur navigation. 

Aucun pilote ne peut §tre fourni a ces batiments sans l'autorisation 
du Gouvernement neutre. 

XIII. Un second approvisionnement dans le mime pays neutre doit-il 
itre permis sans qu'il y ait lieu de fixer un delaif 

ESPAGNE. 

Article 5, alinea 2. Le vaisseau belligerant qui se serait appro- 
visionne dans un port neutre, ne pourra plus le faire dans aucun port 
du meme pays neutre qu'apres un laps de temps de trois mois. 

GRANDE-BRETAGNE. 

(18) Une puissance neutre ne devra pas permettre sciemment a un 
navire de guerre d'un belligerant se trouvant dans sa juridiction de 
s'approvisionner de charbon, si le navire a deja, dans les trois mois qui 
precedent, fait du charbon dans les eaux de la dite puissance neutre. 



DISCUSSIONS AT THE HAGUE, 1907. 91 

Among the regulations tentatively proposed at the 
Second Hague Conference, 1907, in regard to belligerent 
vessels in time of war were : 

ESPAGNE. 

Article 1. II ne sera pas permis aux vaisseaux de guerre d'entrer 
ou de sojourner dans les ports ou les eaux neutres, en les prenant 
comme base d'operations de guerre, quelle que soit la nature de ces 
operations. 

JAPON. 

I. II est interdit aux navires belligerants de se servir des ports et 
des eaux neutres soit comme lieu d'observations ou de rendez-vous 
soit comme bases d'operations de guerre ou de buts militaires de toute 
nature. 

RUSSIE. 

II. Tout acte d'hostilite est interdit aux batiments de guerre ap- 
partenant a un Etat belligerant pendant leur sejour dans les ports et 
les eaux territoriales neutres. 

III. Est egalement interdit aux dits batiments de se servir des ports 
et des eaux territoriales neutres comme de bases d'operations de guerre. 

At the time of the discussion of the matter of rights 
and duties of neutrals in time of war at the Hague Con- 
ference in 1907 various propositions were submitted. 

Great Britain: 

(2) Tout belligerant est tenu de respecter les droits souverains d'un 
Etat neutre et de s'abstenir, dans le territoire ou les eaux territoriales 
d'un neutre, de tout acte qui, s'il etait commis avec la permission 
expresse du Gouvernement neutre, constituerait un manquement de 
neutrality . 

The Japanese projet in regard to ships of the belliger- 
ents in neutral waters submitted to the Hague Confer- 
ence on July 2, 1907, provided that — 

IV. Les navires belligerants ne pourront dans les ports ou les eaux 
neutres, ni augmenter leurs forces de guerre, ni faire de reparations 
sauf celles qui seront indispensables a la securite de leur navigation, 
ni charger aucun approvisionnement excepte du charbon et des pro- 
visions suffisant avec ce qui reste encore a bord pour les mettre a meme 
d'atteindre a urie vitesse economique le port le plus rapproche de leur 
pays ou une destination neutre plus proche encore. 

V. Ni les navires belligerants se rendant sur le theatre de la guerre 
ou se dirigeant vers cette meme direction ou vers la zone des hostilites 
existantes, ni ceux dont la destination est douteuse ou inconnue, ne 
pourront faire de reparations ou d' acquisitions de charbon ou de pro- 
visions dans les ports ou les eaux neutres. 



92 COALING IN NEUTRAL WATERS. 

4 

VI. Les navires belligerants qui sejourneront dans les ports ou eaux 
neutres au-dela de la limite du delai admise par les regies ci-dessus, 
qui feront acquisition d'autres provisions que celles qui sont admises 
par lesdites regies, ou qui violeront d'une facon ou d'une autre les 
limitations ou restrictions imposees par lesdites regies, seront desarmes 
et internes pendant le reste de la guerre par les Puissances neutres 
auxquelles appartiennent ces ports ou eaux. 

Sir Ernest Satow, on August 1, formally placed before 
the subcommittee of the third commission at the Hague 
Conference of 1907 his opinion. 

XII. Dans quelle mesure pourront-ils s'y approvisionner de vivres et 
du charbon? 

L'examen des reglements adoptes par les differentes nations nous 
prouve qu'en tant qui concerne 1' appro visionnement du charbon, on 
est maintenant dispose a permettre qu'une quantite soit mise a bord 
du navire belligerant qui lui permettra de gagner le port le plus proche 
de son propre pays, ou, dans certaines circonstances, le port le plus 
proche d'un Etat neutre. On y a ajoute aussi la regie que le navire 
belligerant ne devra pas s' approvisionner de charbon si, dans les trois 
mois qui precedent, le dit navire aura fait du charbon dans un port 
de ia dite Puissance neutre. Les Puissances qui ont adopte ce regle- 
ment sont: la Hollande, la Belgique, le Danemark, les Etats-Unis 
d'Amerique, la Grande-Bretagne, le Japon, la Norvege et la Suede. 

L'ltalie exige que 1' appro visionnement du charbon ne se fasse 
qu'apres un delai de 24 heures apres l'arrivee du navire. L'usage 
adopte par le Bresil exige que le navire ne fasse pas du charbon au 
dela de ce qui est strictement necessaire pour lui permettre de con- 
tinuer son voyage; 1' appro visionnement de charbon est interdit a tout 
navire destine a croiser dans les mers voisines dans le but de capturer 
les vaisseaux ennemis ou de se livrer a des operations de guerre quel- 
conques. 

De plus il n'est permis au navire belligerant de faire du charbon 
une deuxieme fois dans un port bresilien, que s'il s'est ecoule un laps 
de temps permettant de croire que le navire apres s'etre eloigne des 
cotes du Bresil, y est revenu apres avoir execute le voyage auquel il 
se destinait. 

II est aussi interdit au navire belligerant de recevoir dans les ports 
de la Republique des aliments venus directement pour lui sur des 
navires de n'importe quelle nation; la tolerance d'un tel abus equi- 
vaudrait, dans la pensee du Gouvernement bresilien, a permettre que 
ces ports servent aux belligerants de bases d' operations. 

La meme doctrine s'appliquerait probablement au cas d'un navire 
qui se servirait d'un bateau charbonnier pour s' approvisionner de 
charbon. 

Une autre restriction exercee par le Bresil consiste dans la prohibi- 
tion d'envoyer, du territoire bresilien, des depeches telegraphiques 



DISCUSSIONS AT THE HAGUE, 1907. 93 

pour annoncer le depart ou Parrivee prochain d'un navire belligerant r 
navire de guerre ou navire marchand. 

La quantite de vivres qui pourra etre pris a bord est soumise dans 
presque tous les cas aux memes conditions que celles qui gouvernent 
1' appro visionnement du charbon. 

Les observations que nous avons faites quant a la situation de ces pays 
a proximite des principales routes de navigation et quant a l'avantage a 
ce que des regies universelles sur la duree du sejour soient formulees, 
sont applicables egalement au cas oii on donnerait a un navire de guerre 
la permission de s' appro visionner de charbon. 

Pour resumer, nous pensons qu'il est preferable, afin d'eviter tout 
malentendu, que les Puissances s'entendent entre elles au sujet des 
conditions sous lesquelles il serait permis aux navires belligerants de 
s' appro visionner et de faire du charbon. 

At the same session Captain Burlamaqui presented in 
the name of the Brazilian delegation certain observations. 

Quelques-unes parmi les regies de la neutralite, en ce qui touche le 
sejour des vaisseaux belligerants dans les ports neutres, semblent etre 
concues et proposees au profit seulement des Puissances qui ont des 
ports et des depots maritimes dans les differentes parties du monde. 
Le belligerant qui ne serait pas dans ce cas, se trouverait condamne a 
une inferiorite desastreuse vis-a-vis des autres, particulierement en ce 
qui concerne la possibilite de s' appro visionner des combustibles neces- 
saires au voyage. Ces privilegies ne font qu'un tres petit nombre. 
Ce serait done une inegalite flagrante envers la grande majorite des 
Etats maritimes. 

II nous parait done juste de convenir que dans les ports des pays 
neutres eloignes du theatre des operations, les batiments de guerre des 
belligerants soient admis pendant plus de vingt-quatre heures a recevoir. 
du charbon pour des voyages plus longs que ceux consentis sous les 
regies en vigueur. 

Le plus raisonnable serait, nous semble-t-il, de ne pas fixer un limite 
precis de temps en laissant a la prudence et a la loyaute des neutres 
d'elargir ou de retrecir la duree du sejour d'apres les circonstances qui 
sont susceptibles de varier extremement. 

C'est la solution, adoptee dans les instructions francaises du 26 avril 
1898 sur la conduite a tenir a l'occasion de la guerre survenue entre 
l'Espagne et les Etats-Unis d'Amerique. (Rev. Gener. de Droit Inter- 
national Publ., vol. V, de 1898 docum., pag. 29.) 

Nous esperons que la Conference daignera accorder a la proposition 
que nous soumettons, l'attention qu'elle semble meriter. 

There were two principles in regard to the supply of fuel 
to a belligerent war vessel in a neutral port which found 
adherents at the Second Hague Conference. One of these 
would limit the supply to the amount necessary to reach 



94 COALING IN NEUTRAL WATERS. 

the nearest home port, the other would permit the filling 
of the bunkers to the normal peace capacity. 

Admiral Siegel, of the German delegation, said in the 
discussion of this matter before the subcommittee of the 
third commission: 

Nous nous trouvons devant deux systemes relatifs a la quantite du 
charbon que les ports neutres peuvent accorder aux navires de guerre 
belligerants dans leurs ports et avant de faire votre choix, je vous prie 
de bien vouloir me permettre de preciser en quelques paroles les diffe- 
rences de ces deux systemes et leur signification pour les neutres. 

Ce que nous voulons, comme neutres, ce qu'il nous faut, c'est de con- 
naitre aussi exactement que possible la quantite du charbon qu'on peut 
donner a un navire belligerant dans nos ports sans etre oblige d'entrer 
dans des recherches inquisitoriales ou de nous meler dans les affaires du 
navire qui ne nous regardent pas. Nous voulons une regie simple et 
facile a appliquer, qui nous permette de donner suite aux demandes 
•d'un navire tout en nous epargnant des reclamations et des contestations. 

Regardons de pres les deux systemes et voyons de quelle maniere 
ils satisfont a ces conditions. 

Si Ton acceptait la premiere regie qui dit qu'on ne peut accorder au 
navire belligerant plus de charbon qu'il ne lui est necessaire pour 
gagner le port le plus proche de son pays, une serie de questions se pre- 
sentent qui doivent etre tranchees par le neutre et qui le mettent dans 
un grand embarras. 

On sera peut-etre en mesure de preciser quel est le port le plus proche 
et de calculer la distance, mais alors vient la question du rayon d'action 
et de la vitesse avec laquelle le navire doit effectuer son voyage. On 
peut admettre que ce soit la vitesse la plus economique. Mais cette 
vitesse peut varier d'apres la qualite du charbon, d'apres 1'etat des 
chaudieres et de la machine, d'apres cclui de la coque, d'apres l'in- 
struction et l'experience du personnel, etc. Et encore cette vitesse 
n'est-elle possible qu'en des circonstances favorables. Si le navire 
trouve du gros temps, s'il est oblige de forcer sa route contre le vent et 
la mer, tous les calculs devienaent inexacts et le navire court tous les 
dangers. Comment serait-il done possible de fixer la quantite neces- 
saire pour le voyage? On pourrait dire que le commandant donnera 
tous les renseignments qui peuvent servir de base pour evaluer la quan- 
tite de charbon. Mais lui-meme ne pourra pas prevoir le temps qu'il 
trouvera en mer; et on ne peut exiger de lui qu'il mette son navire en 
peril, en demandant trop peu de charbon; le commandant demandera 
done la plus grande quantite possible et il restera toujoUrs a craindre 
qu'un conflit ne s'eleve entre le commandant et les autorites de l'Etat 
neutre, conflit de nature a causer plus tard des reclamations. 

D'ailleurs, dans le cas ou le port le plus proche serait tellement eloigne* 
qu'il serait impossible au navire d'attcindre ce port, sans renouveler sa 
provision de charbon, il serait toujours necessaire de donner au navire 
la plus grande quantite du charbon possible. Enfin on doit considerer 



DISCUSSIONS AT THE HAGUE, 1907. 95 

le cas ou le port le plus proche est bloque, ce qui modifierait toutes les 
conditions du calcul. 

Bref, la quantite du charbon accordee changerait d'apres les diffe- 
rentscas, et le neutreserait toujours oblige de prendre sur lui la respon- 
sabilite de fixer le nombre de tonnes de combustible que le navire de- 
vrait recevoir. 

La question serait tout autre et beaucoup plus facile a regler si une 
regie generale disposait que le neutre peut donner autant charbon qu'il 
est necessaire pour remplir les soutes proprement dites. Dans ce cas, 
le neutre recevrait du commandant un certain chiffre indiquant la 
quantite du charbon qui lui manque. L'Etat neutre serait en etat 
de se rendre compte que cette quantite n'a pas ete depassee, car il n'est 
pas difficile de constater que les soutes sont pleines; la livraison de 
charbon cesserait alors et toute contestation, toute reclamation serait 
ainsi evitee. 

Les Delegues techniques de 15 pays ont discute cette question pen- 
dant plus de deux heures et a la fin une majorite de 10 voix contre 5 
s'est declaree en faveur de la disposition disant que l'Etat neutre 
pourra donner le charbon necessaire pour remplir les soutes, parce que 
c'etait la mesure la plus convenable et le meilleur moyen pratique 
d'eviter des malentendus. 

Contre l'adoption de cette proposition onaallegue que le belligerant 
y trouverait un moyen facile de se procurer du charbon pour tenir la 
haute mer et pour entreprendre des actes hostiles pour un assez long 
temps, notamment dans le cas oil il se trouverait a proximite d'un cer- 
tain nombre d'Etats neutres. 

Mais cette situation n'existe qu'en quelques parties du monde. Dans 
de vastes parties du globe, les ports ou Ton peut recevoir du charbon 
sont assez eloignes l'un de P autre. D'ailleurs le meme etat des choses 
se presenterait egalement dans le cas oil la regie du propre port le plus 
prochain serait acceptee. Tous les Etats neutres dont les ports sont 
tres eloignes du port le plus prochain du belligerant seraient obliges 
de donner non seulement le plein de soutes mais la plus grande quan- 
tite du charbon pour mettre le navire belligerant en etat d'aller aussi 
loin que possible. 

Une derniere consideration est que le neutre est maitre dans sa 
maison et qu'il peut defendre Pacces de ses ports a tout navire belli- 
gerant qui essaye d'en user comme base d'operations. Au reste, le 
neutre n'a pas pour devoir de prejuger les intentions d'un navire 
belligerant qui visite une fois son port et qui appartient a une nation 
avec laquelle il vit en paix; il suffit qu'il traite les deux belligerants 
de la meme maniere. 

Messieurs, telles sont les raisons qui nous ont determines a vous 
proposer d'accepter Palinea 2 de Particle 10 dans la forme suivante: 
"Ces navires ne peuvent de meme prendre du combustible que pour 
completer leur plein de soutes proprement dites." 

General survey of discussions at The Hague. — The report 
of the United States delegation to the Second Hague Con- 



96 COALING IN NEUTKAL WATEBS. 

f erence, speaking of the question of limitation of the supply 
of coal in neutral ports, says : 

The proposition advanced by England represented the strict views 
of neutral rights and duties which are held by States maintaining 
powerful naval establishments, supplemented by a widely distributed 
system of coaling stations and ports of call, in which their merchant 
vessels could find convenient refuge at the outbreak of war and which 
enable them to carry on operations at sea quite independently of a 
resort to neutral ports for the procurement of coal or other supplies or 
for purposes of repair. As the policy of the United States Government 
has generally been one of strict neutrality, the delegation found itself 
in sympathy with this policy in many, if not most, of its essential 
details. France for many years past has taken a somewhat different 
view of its neutral obligations, and has practiced a liberal, rather than 
a strict, neutrality. The views of France in that regard have received 
some support from the Russian delegation and were favored to some 
extent by Germany and Austria. 

It was constantly borne in mind by the delegation, in all delibera- 
tions in committee, that the United States is, and always has been, a 
permanently neutral power, and has always endeavored to secure the 
greatest enlargement of neutral privileges and immunities. Not only 
are its interests permanently neutral, but it is so fortunately situated, 
in respect to its military and naval establishments, as to be able to 
enforce respect for such neutral rights and ^obligations as flow from its 
essential rights of sovereignty and independence. 

With a view, therefore, to secure to neutral States the greatest possible 
exemption from the burdens and hardships of war, the delegation of 
the United States gave constant support to the view that stipulations 
having for that purpose the definition of the rights and duties of neu- 
trals should, as a rule, take the form of restrictions and prohibitions 
upon the belligerents, and should not, save in case of necessity, charge 
neutrals with the performance of specific duties. This rule was only 
departed from by the delegation in cases where weak neutral powers 
demanded, and need, the support of treaty stipulations in furtherance 
of their neutral duties. It was also borne in mind that a State resorting 
to certain acts with a view to prevent violations of its neutrality derives 
power to act from the fact of its sovereignty, rather than from the stipu- 
lations of an international convention. (Senate Doc, 60th Cong., 1st 
sess., No. 444, p. 50.) 

Resume. — By Article I of the Convention concerning 

the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War: 

Belligerents are bound to respect the sovereign rights of neutral 
powers and to abstain, in neutral territory or neutral waters, from any 
act which would, if knowingly permitted by any power, constitute a 
violation of neutrality. 

Unrestrained or repeated coaling in neutral waters, if 
knowingly permitted by a neutral, would unquestionably 



CONCLUSION. 97 

constitute a violation of neutrality and is therefore an 
act from which the belligerent is bound to refrain. 
Further, Article XVIII of the same convention prohibits 
the use of territorial waters for " replenishing or increas- 
ing " supplies of "war material" or "armament." Coal 
destined for the belligerent forces has in recent years 
been regarded as war material. In Situation IV there 
has been within three months an actual increasing of the 
supply of war material within neutral jurisdiction. Under 
the spirit of Article XVIII, the taking on of coal would 
not be allowed to the war vessel of State X. 

As is evident from the neutrality proclamations of re-, 
cent years, it is the purpose of neutrals to strictly limit 
the use of neutral territorial waters by belligerents to such 
purposes as the neutrals may specifically enumerate. In 
most proclamations prohibitions have been extended to 
ports, roadsteads, and territorial waters. 

The provisions of the Convention concerning the Rights 
and Duties of Neutral Powers were agreed upon to har- 
monize divergent views. The divergency of view in re- 
gard to coaling was in regard to the amount rather than 
in regard to the frequency and place of coaling. This con- 
vention also provides that "it is expedient to take into 
consideration the general principles of the law of nations." 

From the general principles set forth in the convention, 
from the neutrality proclamations, from practice in recent 
wars, and from the general principles of the laws of na- 
tions it is evident that the contention of State Z is cor- 
rect. Very wide freedom has been allowed to belligerents 
in matter of coaling. The use of any place within neutral 
jurisdiction, except under the terms of the convention 
regulating the supply of coal to belligerents, would be 
using such place as a base, which is prohibited. Certain 
propositions made by neutral States have not only pre- 
scribed the refusal of such supplies, but also the intern- 
ing of a belligerent vessel which disregards such neutral 
regulations. 

CONCLUSION. 

The contention of State Z is correct. 

55983—09 7 



Situation V. 

BLOCKADING BY MINES. 

There is war between States X and Y. Other States 
are neutral. War vessels of State X are blockading a 
port of State Y. Two of the war vessels of State X are 
called away, leaving only two to aid in maintaining an 
effective blockade. The two remaining vessels lay a line 
of automatic contact mines of which they give notice to 
neutrals. 

The neutrals protest on the ground that this is not a 
legitimate method of blockade and maintain that the mines 
should be removed. 

What action should be taken? 

SOLUTION. 

Under the strict law such use of mines is not prohibited.' 
It would seem, however, that mines should not be used 
for the maintenance of a commercial blockade and that 
neutrals would have good cause to protest against such 
use, which protest a belligerent should heed. 

NOTES ON SITUATION V. 

Effective blockade. — According to the Declaration of 
Paris, 1856, to which most States acceded " blockades, in 
order to be binding, must be effective; that is to say, 
maintained by a force sufficient to prevent access to the 
coast of the enemy." This principle has been so generally 
recognized as to be little questioned. The words "suf- 
ficient force" have received varied interpretations. It is 
not certain just what constitutes a "sufficient force," nor 
of what character such force must be. Sir Alexander 
Cockburn, in the case of Geipel v. Smith, said : 

In the eye of the law a blockade is effective if the enemies' ships are 
in such numbers and position as to render the running of the blockade 
a matter of danger, although some vessels may succeed in getting 
through. (Law Reports, 7 Queen's Bench, 404.) 

98 



TREATY PROVISIONS. 99 

The definition of blockade, according to the armed neu- 
tralities of 1780 and 1800, spoke of its maintenance by 
vessels. The Declaration of Paris of 1856, however, men- 
tions " & sufficient force " not defining the nature of the 
force. 

Treaty provisions. — Article 13 of the treaty between the 
United States and Italy of 1871 contains the statement 
that those States — 

Being desirous of removing every uncertainty which may hitherto 
have arisen respecting that which upon principles of fairness and jus- 
tice ought to constitute a legal blockade, they hereby expressly declare 
that such places only shall be considered blockaded as shall be actually 
invested by naval forces capable of preventing the entry of neutrals, 
and so stationed as to create an evident danger on their part to attempt it. 

There may in some cases be a doubt as to what might 
properly constitute " naval forces capable of preventing 
entry of neutrals." Some maintain that there may be 
question of the propriety of the use of mines for such pur- 
pose; others regard mines as legitimate as any form of 
naval warfare, whether for blockade or other service. 

Opinion of court. — In the case of the Circassian in 1864, 
Mr. Justice Chase said, in regard to blockade: 

It may be made effectual by batteries ashore as well as by ships 
afloat. In the case of an inland port, the most effective blockade would 
be maintained by batteries commanding the river or inlet by which it 
may be approached, supported by a naval force sufficient to warn off 
innocent and capture offending vessels, attempting to enter. (2 Wal- 
lace, U. S. Supreme Court Reports, p. 135.) 

Obstructions in aid of blockade, stone. — Speaking in 
1862 of the stone placed in Charleston Harbor to aid in 
maintaining the blockade and of the opposition raised by 
some European States to this method, Secretary Seward 
in a letter to Minister Dayton, at Paris, said : 

Hitherto such obstructions have been regarded as an ordinary mili- 
tary appliance of war. No American ever conceived that the human 
hand could place obstructions in a river which the same hand could not 
remove. * * * We were, therefore, surprised, and even incredu- 
lous, when we saw that the placing of obstructions in the channels 
leading to Charleston was, in Europe, regarded as an act of peculiar 
and ruthless severity. (U. S. Diplomatic Correspondence, 1862, 
p. 316.) 



100 BLOCKADING BY MINES. 

In a letter two days earlier to Mr. Adams, Mr. Seward 
said: 

I am not prepared to recognize the right of other nations to object to 
the measure of placing artificial obstructions in the channels of rivers 
leading to ports which have been seized by the insurgents in their 
attempt to overthrow this Government. I am, nevertheless, desirous 
that the exaggerations on that subject which have been indulged 
abroad may be corrected. I have, therefore, applied to the Navy 
Department for information, and I have now to inform you that between 
the channels leading to the harbor of Charleston which have been so 
obstructed there still remain two other channels, neither of which has 
been so obstructed, and in which there has been no design to place any 
artificial obstructions. These are the Swash channel and a part of the 
so-called Mafnt's channel. These two latter channels are guarded, and 
passage through them prevented only by the blockading naval forces. 
(Ibid., p. 36.) 

In 1884 certain Chinese harbors were in part blocked by 
stone. In a communication to the Secretary of State at 
this time the United States minister to China says : 

On the 10th of January I was informed by the British minister, Sir 
Harry Parkes, and the German charge d'affaires, Count Tattenbach, 
that dispatches had been received from their consuls at Canton saying 
that the Chinese authorities were preparing to obstruct the water 
approaches to Canton, and that the effect of these obstructions would 
be to imperil, if not to prevent, navigation. The German consul 
reported that Whampoa would be "totally blocked." 

I telegraphed Mr. Consul Seymour for information, and his reply I 
inclose. Mr. Seymour, as you will observe, said that there would be 
"serious obstructions without equivalent benefits." * * * The 
United States during the rebellion saw fit to obstruct the channels in 
Charleston Harbor by sinking ships laden with stone to secure an 
effective blockade. Germany during her latest war with France pro- 
tected her Baltic ports with torpedoes. I should have felt some embar- 
rassment in seeking to persuade the yamen that what Germany and 
the United States regarded as honorable warfare could not be permitted 
to them. (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1884, p. 66.) 

A later dispatch, No. 267, from Secretary Freling- 
huysen says: 

Even, however, under this favorable modification (the opening of 
channels 100 to 150 feet in width) the obstruction to the channel at 
Canton and Whampoa can only be tolerated as a temporary measure, 
to be removed as soon as the special occasion therefor shall have passed, 
and under no circumstances to be admitted as a precedent for setting 



OBSTRUCTIONS IN AID OP BLOCKADE. 101 

obstacles to open navigation at the treaty ports in time of peace, under 
pretext of being intended for ultimate strategic defense in the contin- 
gency of future war. (Ibid., p. 96.) 

A dispatch of Secretary Bayard to Mr. Denby, United 
States minister to China, July 28, 1886, says: 

Your No. 141 is before me, and brings to the Department, with much 
clearness, a question of great interest. It is unquestionable that a 
belligerent may, during war, place obstructions in the channel of a 
belligerent port, for the purpose of excluding vessels of the other bellig- 
erent which seek the port either as hostile cruisers or as blockade run- 
ners. This was done by the Dutch when attacked by Spain in the 
time of Philip II; by England when attacked by the Dutch in the 
time of Charles II; by the United States when attacked by Great 
Britain in the late civil war; by Russia at the siege of Sebastopol; and 
by Germany during the Franco-German war of 1870. But while such 
is the law, it is equally settled by the law of nations that when war 
ceases such obstructions, when impeding navigation in channels in 
which great ships are accustomed to pass, must be removed by the 
territorial authorities. Such is the rule apart from treaty; and it was 
implicitly admitted by Mr. Seward, when, in replying to the re- 
monstrances by the British Government on the placing by the block- 
ading authorities of obstructions in the harbor of Charleston, he stated 
that these obstructions were placed there merely temporarily. Were 
there any doubt about this question, which I maintain there is not, it 
would be settled by the provisions of our treaties with China, which 
virtually make Canton a free port, to which our merchant ships are 
entitled to have free access in time of peace. You are therefore in- 
structed to make use of the best efforts in your power to induce the Chi- 
nese Government to remove the obstructions in the Canton River, 
which, as you state, operate to close the port of Canton to the merchant 
vessels of the United States. 

In sending to you this instruction, I affirm, the instruction of Mr. 
Frelinghuysen to Mr. Young, No. 267, dated April 18, 1884, printed in 
the Foreign Relations of that year. (U. S. Foreign Relations 1886, 
p. 95.) 

Professor Moore summarizes the Chinese action in the 
Chino- Japanese war of 1894 as follows: 

During the war with Japan in 1894, the Tsung-li yamen announced 
the closure of Foochow for purposes of defense. One entrance was 
left open, and a place was designated as an anchorage for foreign and 
Chinese steamers outside the mouth of the river, where they were 
required to discharge and load cargo, which was conveyed to and 
from Foochow by lighters registered at the customs. These lighters 
followed an indicated route and plied only in the daytime. In report- 
ing these measures, the American charge at Peking observed that, 



102 BLOCKADING BY MINES. 

burdensome as they doubtless would prove to be, no objection could 
be made to them in view of the demoralization of the Chinese naval 
forces, Foochow being an important naval depot which must be 
guarded at all hazards. The Government of the United States re- 
affirmed the position taken by Mr. Frelinghuysen in his telegram to 
Mr. Young of January 22, 1884, and by Mr. Bayard, in his instruc- 
tions to Mr. Denby of July 28, 1886. (7 Int. Law Digest, p. 858; 
U. S. Foreign Relations 1894, Appendix I, p. 71.) 

Obstructions in aid of blockade, sunken vessels.— Pro- 
fessor Lawrence, writing of the Russo-Japanese war of 
1904, said: 

In the present war no one, even in Russia, has hinted that the 
Japanese went beyond their rights in attempting to block the channel 
leading to the inner harbor of Port Arthur by sunken merchantmen, 
or in mining the sea pathway which they had observed the Russian 
ironclads to take when going in and coming out. (War and Neutrality 
in the Far East, 2d ed., p. 104.) 

Use of mines during blockade. — Sir Thomas Barclay 
says of the general use of mines at Port Arthur: 

During the blockade of Port Arthur, the Russians laid mines in all 
parts of the sea adjacent to that port. The Japanese allege that from 
the beginning to the end of the siege they removed 395 Russian mines. 
The removal continued after the siege, so that the total number re- 
moved they estimate to have much exceeded this number. In an 
excellent article, dated November 24, 1905, published in the Times of 
December 27, the able Tokyo correspondent of that paper remarked 
that "this chapter of history would not have retained a prominent 
place in general recollection, had it not been vividly illustrated from 
time to time by shocking disasters to merchant steamers, which, while 
navigating routes comparatively remote from the scene of the com- 
bat, struck errant mines, and were sent to the bottom." The Russians 
were not alone the offenders. The Japanese made almost equally 
extensive use of such mines, as has been learned from a document 
compiled at the Japanese Hydrographers' Office in answer to an appli- 
cation from the Russian headquarter staff for information as to the 
locality of any mines placed by the Japanese in the neighborhood 
of Vladivostok. The Japanese Admiralty replied, says the same cor- 
respondent, by a detailed statement showing that two mine-laying 
operations had been carried out by the Japanese in Vladivostok 
waters — the one in April, 1904, to render impassable the entrance and 
exit through the straits which must be passed to reach the port; the 
other, about a year later, when the Baltic fleet had arrived in Far 
Eastern waters. In this case 715 mines were laid "right across Peter 
the Great Bay, from Askold Island to Korsakoff Island, a distance of 
forty miles." These figures show that there must have been a mine at 



DISCUSSION AT THE HAGUE, 1907. 103 

about every 100 yards. "In spite of this great plexus of destructive 
engines," communications with Vladivostok continued undisturbed 
during the period of eight months — from April 15, 1905, when the 
Askold-Korsakoff line was laid, to November 9 of the same year — when 
the Japanese Admiralty replied to the Russian inquiry. (Problems of 
International Practice and Diplomacy, p. 59.) 

Discussion of the use of mines at the Hague Conference, 
1907. — In the letter of instructions as to the Second 
Hague Conference, Sir Edward Grey says to Sir Edward 
Fry in regard to mines: 

15. His Majesty's Government would view with satisfaction the 
abandonment of the employment of automatic mines in naval war- 
fare altogether. Failing the acceptance of such a total prohibition, 
they earnestly hope that the employment of these engines of war will 
only be sanctioned under the strictest limitations. They would advo- 
cate an arrangement by which the use of automatic mines should be 
limited to territorial waters, and, if possible, to such portions of terri- 
torial waters as adjoin naval bases or fortified ports. All mines thus 
employed should be effectively anchored, and so constructed that, in 
the event of their breaking adrift, they would either automatically 
become harmless or sink, and that in any case their active life should 
not exceed a limited period of say six months. (Correspondence Re- 
specting the Second Peace Conference, Parliamentary Papers Misc. 
No. 1 (1908) [Cd. 3857].) 

Various questions were raised as to the meaning of 
any prohibition of the use of mines for the maintenance 
of a blockade. Great Britain proposed an article to the 
following effect: 

L'emploi de mines sous-marines automatiques de contact pour 
etablir ou maintenir un blocus de commerce est interdit. 

The British proposition became the point" of departure 
for discussion on this topic. It was asked whether such 
a regulation would prohibit the use of mines by the 
blockading fleet for its own defense, etc. Captain Ottley 
replied that the intent was to prevent the closing of a 
great commercial port by the exclusive use of a line of 
mines. The president of the commission, M. Hagerup, 
said that two main questions seemed to be raised: 

1°. Les batiments etablissant ou maintenant un blocus pourront-ils 
employer des mines pour leur defense personnelle? 

2°. Peut-on etablir un blocus de commerce uniquement a l'aide de 
mines? Tout le monde parait etre d' accord pour repondrejjnegative- 
ment a la seconde question. 



104 BLOCKADING BY MINES. 

The discussion in regard to the use of automatic con- 
tact mines introduces the conflict of interests between 
neutral and belligerent. The belligerent of large re- 
sources, ample military forces, varied and extended 
commercial interests would naturally desire that these 
should have the greatest freedom in use. The belliger- 
ent of small resources, both commercial and military, 
would naturally desire to use the most economical means 
of defense and to use these means with the least possible 
restraint. Some of the States having less military re- 
sources regard mines as essential to their protection 
against the more powerful and as a possible means by 
which they can close the ports of the great powers. 
Neutrals may also be involved in many ways. This is 
to some extent shown in the remarks of the Italian dele- 
gate, Captain Castiglia, at the opening of the discussion 
on the subject of submarine mines at the Second Hague 
Conference, June 27, 1907: 

L'emploi des mines est un moyen de defense auquel ne pourront 
jamais renoncer ni les grandes puissances qui ont une longue etendue 
de cotes a proteger, ni, a plus forte raison, celles 'qui ne possedant pas 
une grande marine de guerre trouveront dans l'emploi de ces armes un 
puissant auxiliaire a leur defense maritime. 

C'est la defense la moins couteuse et pour cela elle est a la portee de 
tous. Mais si Ton pense aux desastreuses consequences que ces in- 
struments de guerre peuvent causer au commerce pacifique des neutres 
et a l'exercice de la peche, pendant et meme apres la guerre, c'est 
bien naturel que Ton cherche a mettre quelque frein dans l'usage de 
ces terribles instruments pour en eliminer les consequences fatales. 

Mais les types des mines adoptes sont si differents, et les cas particu- 
liers de leur emploi sont si nombreux, que meme avec toute la meil- 
leure bonne volonte, il serait impossible de dieter des regies generates 
pouvant etre toujours suivies fidelement. 

La defense sous-marine ideale dans le sens de ne produire aucun 
dommage aux navires des neutres est celle qu'on obtient avec des ob- 
structions composees de mines fixes, que des observateurs font eclater 
moyennant l'electricite. Mais l'emploi de ces mines est non seule- 
ment limite pres des cotes, mais aussi il n'est pas toujours possible. 

Sir Ernest Satow, speaking before the Third Commis- 
sion at the Second Hague Conference, on September 17, 



DISCUSSION AT THE HAGUE, 1907. 105 

1907, said of the amended form of the British proposition 
to absolutely prohibit blockade by mines: 

L'article 4, alinea 3, declare qu'il l ' est interdit de placer des mines 
automatiques de contact devant les cotes et les ports de l'adversaire 
dans le seul but d'intercepter la navigation de commerce." C'est la 
une clause qui laisse au belligerant une echappatorre bien dangereuse. 
On avait propose dans le Comite de ne permettre la pose de mines 
devant un port de commerce qu'a la condition qu'il y eut dans ce port 
au moins une grande unite de combat, mais la proposition fut vive- 
ment combattue et dut, par consequent, etre retiree. Cependant il 
serait, a notre avis, tout a fait contraire a l'esprit et a la lettre de la 
Declaration de Paris de permettre qu'un blocus fut maintenue totale- 
ment ou en partie a l'aide de mines. Je me permets de vous rappeler 
le texte meme du passage qui a trait a cette question — "les blocus, 
pour etre obligatoires, doivent etre effectifs," c'est-a-dire maintenu 
par une force suffisante pour interdire reellement l'acces du littoral de 
l'ennemi. II est clair qu'il s'agit ici d'une force suffisante composee 
de navires de guerre, et que Ton ne peut comprendre dans cette cate- 
gorie des mines sous-marines, qui ne sont sujettes a aucun controle, et 
qui ne contiennent en elles aucune preuve evidente de l'intention de 
fermer l'acces du port bloque. II serait par consequent bon de tirer 
ce point au clair, afin de ne laisser subsister aucune equivoque, et 
c'est pourquoi nous avons l'lionneur de proposer le texte suivant a la 
place de celui que nous avons sous les yeux. 

It was recognized in the discussions of Article II of the 
convention relative to the laying of automatic contact 
submarine mines that the introduction of the last clause 
would introduce possible complications. The article is 
as follows: 

It is forbidden to lay automatic contact mines off the coast and ports 
of the enemy with the sole object of intercepting commercial shipping. 

According to the last clause the prohibition extends to 
the mines laid with the "sole object of intercepting com- 
mercial shipping." This introduces the question of in- 
tent, which is always difficult to prove. The intent is, 
however, restricted by the introduction of the adjective 
a sole" (le seul hut). 

The report of the sub commission which had the matter 
of automatic contact mines under consideration was as 
relates to the question of blockade by mines as follows: 

Art. 4. Devant les cdtes et les ports de leurs adversaries, les belligerants 
peuvent placer des mines automatiques de contact amarrees dans les limites 
indiquees aux deux articles precedents 



106 BLOCKADING BY MINES. 

Toutefois, Us ne peuvent depasser la limite de trois milles rnarins devant 
les ports, qui ne sont pas des ports de guerre, que s'il s'y trouve des etablis- 
sements de constructions navales ou de radoub, appartenant a VEtat. 

II est inter dit de placer des mines automatiques de contact devant les 
cotes et les ports de V adversaire dans le seul but d'intercepter la navigation 
de commerce. 

Apres avoir fixe des limites a la defense des cotes, le reglement 
s'occupe dans 1'article 4 de l'attaque. Les deux premiers alineas de 
cet article se rapportent aux limites que, dans l'espace, les belligerants 
doivent garder en posant des mines amarrees devant les cotes ennemies; 
le troisieme alinea y apporte une nouvelle restriction, c'est que meme 
la, ou devant les cotes ennemies on peut placer dans la zone des deux 
premiers alineas, des mines amarrees, on ne peut pas en placer ' ' dans 
le seul but d'intercepter le commerce." 

1) Occupons-nous d'abord de cette derniere disposition. Elle doit 
son existence a une proposition britannique, contenue dans le projet 
primitif de la Delegation de Grande-Bretagne et portant que "il est 
interdit d' employer des mines sous-marines automatiques de contact 
pour etablir ou maintenir un blocus de commerce." 

Dans la Sous-Commission, M.le Contre-Amiral Arago fit remarquer, 
qu'avant tout il serait necessaire de determiner la portee precise de 
cette disposition. ' ' Interdit-elle par exemple aux vaisseaux bellige- 
rants, qui etablissent un blocus, tout usage de mines sous-marines, 
meme pour leur defense propre, ou, au contraire, a-t-elle seulement 
pour but d'interdire l'etablissement d'un blocus a l'aide d'un cordon 
de mines sous-marines place devant une cdte ennemie?", a quoi M. le 
Capitaine de Vaisseau Ottley repondit "que la pensee a laquelle 
cette disposition s'est inspiree, etait l'interdiction a un belligerant de 
fermer un port de commerce de son ennemi par l'emploi de mines 
automatiques de contact." 

Devant cette position de la question on dut se demander, si la dis- 
cussion de la proposition britannique n'outrepassait pas les limites de 
la competence de la 3 tme Commission. On fit observer que la question 
de savoir quant et comment un blocus peut etre etabli, est du ressort 
de la 4 fime Commission, qui aurait a s'occuper de la matiere du blocus 
de guerre; c'est notammement a la 4 tme Commission qu'il devrait 
appartenir de se prononcer sur toute question concernant l'effectivite 
du blocus. Apres un echange de vues au sein de la Sous-Commission, 
le President put constater l'unanimite de la Sous-Commission a ne 
s'occuper que de l'une des faces que presentait la proposition britanni- 
que; il s'agirait seulement de determiner, en examinant les mines, 
comme moyen de nuire a l'ennemi, si Ton peut s'en servir dans le but 
de barrer la navigation commerciale de 1' adversaire — question a 
laquelle, parait-il, on devrait repondre negativement. Cela etabli, on 
pourrait confier au Comite le soin de bien faire ressortir cette pensee 
commune, tout en laissant hors de discussion l'application, au sujet 



OPINIONS OF TEXT WRITERS. 107 

de l'emploi des mines, des principes de la declaration de Paris concern- 
ant l'effectivite du blocus. 

C'est en effet dans cet ordre d'idees que le Comite eut a s'occuper de 
la proposition anglaise. On commenea par etre d'accord sur ce point, 
que, pour se soustraire a tout equivoque, il fallait abandonner le terme 
de blocus, employe dans cette proposition. 

This Article 4 subsequently was amended and became 
Article 2. 

Art. 2. II est interdit de placer des mines automatiques de contact 
devant les cotes et les ports de l'adversaire dans le seul but d'intercepter 
la navigation de commerce. 

Opinions of text writers. — There have been claims that 
the blockade of ports must be wholly by war vessels. 
Fauchille says of this subject: 

En general, les traites qui ont precede la declaration de Paris (voir 
notammment traites de 1780 et 1800) ne precisaient point la nature 
des vaisseaux qu'on pouvait employer dans un blocus. La declaration 
de 1856, elle-meme, est restee muette sur ce point; seulement 1' abro- 
gation de la course qu'elle a prononcee ne peut permettre aucun doute 
a cet egard. Cette derniere observation s'applique egalement aux 
conventions posterieures a 1856. Les lois interieures des Etats sont au 
contraire plus explicites sur la question: la plupart reconnaissent 
expressement le principe qu'un navire de guerre seul peut constituer 
un blocus: nous citerons notammment l'ordonnance des Pays-Bas du 
26 Janvier 1781 (art. 6), les ordonnances suedoises du 21 Janvier 1804 
(§ XI) et du 8 avril 1854 (§ 4), les reglements danois du l er mai 1848 
(§ 1) et du 16 fevrier 1864 (§ 1), le reglement de la Prusse de 20 juin 1864 
(§1), l'ordonnance autrichienne du 3 mars 1864 (§ 1), et celle du 21 
mars 1864 (§ 5), le reglement russe de 1869 (§ 7) et les instructions 
francaises du 25 juillet 1870 (art. 7). L'Institut de droit international, 
qui, dans sa derniere seance, a essaye de codifier les lois du blocus, a 
aussi declare formellement que Faeces du port bloque devait etre 
interdit au moyen de vaisseaux de guerre. (Du Blocus Maritime, 
p. 132.) 

Fauchille also says of the opinion expressed at the 
meeting of the Institute of International Law in 1877 
(Annuaire 1878, p. 110) in regard to the difference be- 
tween blockade by ships or by coast batteries or tor- 
pedoes which render access to the port impossible: 

Nous croyons done que l'emploi de torpilles, nullement defendu par 
la declaration internationale du 11 decembre 1868, est legitime pour 
former un blocus lorsque leur disposition est telle qu'elle permet un 



108 BLOCKADING BY MINES. 

investissement effectif. Et il en sera ainsi, si, outre l'escadre volante, 
il se trouve devant la cote ennemie des vaisseaux dont les torpilles sont 
entre elles a une distance telle que leur puissance explosible puisse 
embrasser tout l'espace de mer qui les separe du vaisseau qui les porte 
ou qui s'etend entre chacune d'elles. (Du Blocus Maritime, p. 134.) 

Fauchille says of the propriety of blockade by sinking 
vessels loaded with stones before the blockaded port: 

Pour resoudre cette question il faut, ce nous semble, envisager 
plusieurs hypotheses: Supposons d'abord qu' outre la ligne de pierres 
il se trouve devant le port une escadre de vaisseaux en nombre sufhsant 
pour avertir tous les navires etrangers de l'existence du blocus. En 
ce cas, le blocus par pierres sera-t-il legitime? Nous devons faire une 
distinction. De deux choses l'une: Ou bien la ligne de pierres est une 
ligne ininterrompue et alors ce mode de blocus. n' est pas legitime. En 
effet, quoique bloque, un port ne se trouve point pour cela ferme a 
tous les vaisseaux etrangers: selon 1' usage international, certains 
batiments peuvent encore sortir du port durant les premieres semaines 
du blocus, et meme pendant la duree de 1' investissement la place 
reste toujours accessible a certains navires particuliers; or, avec le 
systeme que nous supposons, comment ces vaisseaux pourraient-ils 
penetrer dans le lieu bloque ou s'en eloigner? Ce serait chose im- 
possible, car, en verite, on ne peut obliger la flotte bloquante a ouvrir 
un passage dans la ligne de pierres a chaque fois qu'un de ces batiments 
voudrait passer! Ou bien, au contraire, la ligne de barrage n'est pas 
ininterrompue et renferme certains passages; le blocus par pierres est 
alors parfaitement legitime, puisque ces passages, sans empecher 
l'effectivite du blocus, permettent l'entree ou la sortie de la place aux 
batiments qui ont ce droit. Ces passages, disons-nous, ne rendent pas 
le blocus non effectif, attendu qu'ils sont connus des seuls vaisseaux 
bloquants, et que ces vaisseaux bloquants sont supposes etre en nom- 
bre sufhsant pour avertir les neutres, les visiter et poursuivre ceux qui 
resisteraient a leurs ordres. 

Cette premiere hypothese est purement theorique, jamais elle ne se 
realisera dans la pratique, car elle n'offre au belligerant bloquant aucun 
avantage special. Un blocus par pierres ne sera applique par un 
Etat qu'autant qu'il presentera pour celui-ci une certaine utilite, et il 
n'offrira quelque utilite que s'il necessite pour son existence l'emploi 
d'un nombre de batiments moins considerable que le blocus par vais- 
seaux stationnes. Pour examiner si un semblable moyen est vraiment 
legitime, il faut done supposer qu'il n'y a devant la place ainsi cerne 
que quelques rares croiseurs insuffisants pour prevenir de l'existence 
du blocus tous les navires qui se presenteraient. Or, dans ce cas, une 
objection nouvelle s'eleve aussitot. De nombreux navires pourront 
echapper a la surveillance des croiseurs; ignorant l'existence du 
blocus, ils s'approcheront sans crainte du port bloque, et ils iront se 
briser sur la ligne de pierres qui ferme l'entree de la place: des dom- 
mages considerables seront ainsi infliges a des innocents. Un pareil 



OPINIONS OF TEXT WKITERS. 109 

resultat ne peut, ce nous semble, permettre aucun doute sur la legiti- 
mite du systeme qui l'entraine. Ce systeme n'est done, comme l'a 
dit le president des Etats confederes, Jefferson Davis (Message du 12 
Janvier 1863), qu'une "odieuse barbarie." Certes, aucune definition 
ne pouvait mieux convenir au blocus par pierres qui fut etabli en 1861 
par les Americains, puisque ceux-ci avaient declare n'y recourir que 
parce qu'ils ne possedaient pas une flotte suffisante pour constituer r 
avec des navires, un blocus effectif. (Du Blocus Maritime, p. 144.) 

Pradier-Fodere agrees with Fauchille that the mainte- 
nance of a blockade by coast batteries is allowable, citing 
a treaty between France and Denmark of 1742, the Ger- 
man code, and other sources. He also says: 

La seule regie en cette matiere est que les blocus, pour etre obliga- 
toires, doivent etre effectifs, e'est-a-dire maintenus par une force suffi- 
sante pour interdire reellement l'acces du littoral de l'ennemi: or, les 
matelots et les soldats qui desservent les batteries constituent bien une 
force, et si cette force est suffisante pour interdire l'acces du littoral, 
l'entree ou la sortie des ports, il est difficile de ne pas dire qu'il y a la 
un blocus effectif, quoique, a la verite, les blocus maritimes soient le 
plus generalement constitues et maintenus par des forces navales. 
Les blocus par batteries placees sur les cotes sont une exception a la 
maniere ordinaire de bloquer, mais ne sont pas une exception a une 
regie qui n'existe pas, et, des lors, il n'y a pas lieu d'appliquer les 
principes de l'interpretation. 

Les memes observations doivent etre faites, et la meme solution doit 
etre donnee, au sujet de l'interdiction de l'acces d'un littoral, ou d'un 
port, au moyen de torpilles dormantes repandues devant le lieu qu'on 
veut bloquer. Ces torpilles, qui font explosion au contact des navires, 
s'opposent a l'entree dans les ports, ou a la sortie de ces ports, par tout 
batiment de guerre ou de commerce, neutre ou ennemi, et realisent un 
blocus tres absolu, tres effectif. Ce n'est pas le blocus ordinaire et 
regulier, ce n'est point le blocus effectif, tel que le definissaient les 
Neutralites armees de 1780 et 1800, ni meme la declaration du congres 
de Paris de 1856, mais e'est un moyen de fermeture qui expose a un 
danger evident tout navire qui tenterait de la forcer, et qui ne pouvait 
§tre vise avant l'invention et la vulgarisation des torpilles. Ces engins 
de guerre, dont 1' usage est condamne par l'humanite, mais licite d'apres 
le droit international, pouvant etre disposes de maniere a constituer 
un investissement complet, il n'y a pas de raison determinante bien 
serieuse pour ne pas admettre les blocus au moyen de torpilles; 
d'autant plus que ce genre de blocus n'exclut pas, mais meme exige, 
la presence cle navires de guerre, afin de concilier ce moyen de ferme- 
ture avec la necessite generalement reconnue aujourd'hui d'une noti- 
fication speciale faite en dehors de la notification diplomatique, pour 
surveiller les torpilles posees et pour les defendre contre les entreprises 
de l'ennemi bloque. Ce besoin de maintenir des navires de guerre 



110 BLOCKADING BY MINES. 

dans les parages ou les torpilles sont placees, enleve necessairement 
beaucoup d'avantages a cette maniere de bloquer, et Ton peut dire 
que si les blocus par torpilles sont possibles et licites, ce n'est que 
comme complement des blocus par navires. (8 Droit Int. Public, 
no. 3116.) 

Lawrence, speaking of the maintenance of blockade, 

says : 

But it is not necessary that channels should in every case be closed 
by ships, though a maritime blockade without vessels to support it 
would be a contradiction in terms. As an operation supplementary 
to those of the fleet, a waterway may be closed by stones, sunken hulls, 
torpedoes, or other obstructions. When, in 1861, Earl Russell remon- 
strated on behalf of the British Government against the attempt made 
by the Federal forces to block up some of the approaches to Charleston 
and Savannah by sinking vessels in the channels, Mr. Seward replied 
that the obstructions were only temporary and would be removed at 
the termination of the war. In this particular case there was no inten- 
tion to inflict permanent injury upon "the commerce of nations and 
the free intercourse of the Southern States of America with the civil- 
ized world." But even if such a design had been entertained, it is 
difficult to see on what grounds of law neutrals could protest against it. 
A belligerent, who may knock the fortified ports of his enemy to pieces 
by bombardment if they resist his attack, may surely destroy the ap- 
proaches to them from the sea in order to further the objects of his war. 
Neutrals are jealous, and properly jealous, of methods which inflict 
severe injury on their trade; but they can hardly claim to make its 
future prosperity the measure of the legality of hostile acts. (Princi- 
ples of Int. Law, p. 583.) 

Opinion of Professor Lawrence on the Hague Conven- 
tion. — Speaking of the convention in regard to the laying 
of submarine automatic contact mines, Professor Law- 
rence sa} T s: 

Here we have a code which possesses the great advantage of being 
short, terse, and free from legal technicalities. But unfortunately 
the first two articles are greatly diminished in force by a subsequent 
provision, and the third is useless. He must indeed be a curiously 
simple-minded naval commander who cannot think of some other 
reason for laying a cordon of mines off an enemy's port than that of 
intercepting commercial shipping. Even if there be no gunboat, how- 
ever aged and rotten, reposing on the mud of some interior creek, or 
no naval store, however ill-furnished and depleted, hidden in some 
remote corner, there always remains the resource of alleging that the 
enemy's warships must be prevented from gaining the shelter of the 
harbour. Germany saw this and made a reservation against the regu- 
lation on the ground that "the belligerent has only to assert a different 



DANGERS FROM THE USE OF MINES. Ill 

object in order to make it illusory." One would have thought her next 
step would be to suggest that it be turned into a reality. But she ob- 
jected to a British proposal to prohibit outright the use of contact mines 
for closing against commerce ports that were not being attacked from 
the sea, and her opposition was backed by France and Russia. The 
result is that, so far as the conference is concerned, no restraint has 
been put on the activity of belligerents in this direction, though there 
is good reason for the assertion that it would be absolutely contrary 
to existing International Law. (International Problems and Hague 
Conferences, p. 122.) 

Just as a consideration of the law of contraband in conference must 
lead to discussion on the carriage of food stuffs in neutral vessels to un- 
blockaded belligerent ports, so it will be impossible to deal with the 
law of blockade without encountering the question of how a lawful 
blockade is constituted. For generations past there has been one com- 
mon element in all the answers that have been given. Without excep- 
tion they have asserted or assumed that the closure of the blockaded 
port must be effected by ships. There have been controversies as to 
the number of ships to be employed, the necessity of a cross fire being 
brought to bear from them on any vessel attempting to enter, the mani- 
fest nature of the danger threatened by them, and the question whether 
they must be stationed on the spot or may be allowed to cruise within 
reach of it. But no State has ever claimed the right to institute a 
blockade without placing some of its men-of-war in close proximity 
to the place blockaded. Yet at the last Hague Conference such a 
claim was made, not indeed directly, but by implication. The rejec- 
tion of the British proposal to limit the use of anchored contact mines 
to the attack and defence of fortified naval-ports involved a belief in 
the right to use them for closing against commerce ports which were 
not being attacked from the sea. A prohibition against laying them 
"off the coasts and ports of the enemy with the sole object of intercept- 
ing commercial shipping" was indeed inserted in the convention on the 
subject, but we have already (see pp. 122, 123) exposed its futility. 
On this point the proceedings of the conference were reactionary in the 
highest degree. Whereas in the past the only way of closing an enemy's 
port against all neutral commerce was to blockade it, and the only way 
to blockade it was to station a ship or ships in such a position as to 
create evident danger to all vessels attempting ingress or egress, for 
the future it will suffice in the judgment of many powers, to lay a cor- 
don of anchored contact mines across the approaches. Neutrals must 
indeed have lost all virility if they will quietly submit to this. It 
will not mean the comparative triviality of having their ships and 
goods confiscated by a belligerent Prize Court. They will be destroyed 
instead; and all on board will be sent to their doom. (Ibid., p. 189.) 

Dangers from the use of mines for blockade. — It is evi- 
dent that there are many dangers from the use of mines 
in blockade. If notification is not given to every vessel 



112 BLOCKADING BY MINES. 

approaching the line of blockade, vessels may run upon 
mines. It is usually admitted that a vessel may occa- 
sionally pass the line of blockade without being seen by 
the blockading forces, perhaps by reason of darkness or 
storm. Vessels may approach the line of blockade not 
knowing of its existence and innocently try to enter the 
port. Neutral public vessels may even when knowing 
of blockade approach the port. If in such a case, the 
blockading vessels are absent in pursuit of a vessel which 
has violated a blockade; are driven away by the stress 
of the weather; are driven away by the forces of the 
other belligerent, without removing the mines, there 
remains a hidden danger to the vessels innocently ap- 
proaching the port. A neutral attempting to violate a 
blockade, if captured, is liable, after trial by a proper court, 
to condemnation of vessel and cargo. A neutral vessel 
approaching, perhaps innocently, a port blockaded by 
mines, is liable to be destroyed without trial, and not 
merely may the vessel and cargo be sunk but the lives of 
% the officers and crew may be sacrificed. 

A neutral coming within the area of actual hostilities 
is generally held liable to the consequences of his action. 
Therefore, a difference may be made in the means used in 
war in case the place blockaded is a military stronghold 
of the enemy. It may be necessary that such places be 
closed to ingress or egress by mines. 

It seems, therefore, that there should be a distinction 
made in the use of mines for the purpose of closing ports, 
and that the use of mines for commercial blockades 
should not be allowed, or if allowed should be under very 
careful restrictions. 

However, the Hague Convention of 1907 only pro- 
hibits the use of mines for "the sole object of intercepting 
commercial shipping." As has been said it is very easy 
to introduce an additional object for which a blockade is 
maintained while still leaving innocent shipping liable to 
gravest dangers. 

From the nature of the blockade, as stated in this 
Situation V, there is a small blockading force from which 
it might be inferred that it was rather a commercial than 



CONCLUSION. 113 

a military blockade. The representatives of neutral 
States protest against the use of mines before the port. 
Protest would naturally not be lodged against the use 
of mines in any reasonable manner before a military 
stronghold. 

CONCLUSION. 

Under the strict law such use of mines is not pro- 
hibited. It would seem, however, that mines should not 
be used for the maintenance of a commercial blockade 
and that neutrals would have good cause to protest 
against such use, which protest a belligerent should heed. 
55983—09 8 



APPENDIX. 



FINAL ACT AND CONVENTIONS OF 
THE HAGUE CONFERENCE, 1907. 



115 



APPENDIX. 



FINAL ACT AND CONVENTIONS OF THE 
HAGUE CONFERENCE, 1907. 



FINAL ACT OF THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL PEACE 

CONFERENCE. 

Signed by the United States Delegates. 

The Second International Peace Conference, proposed in the first 
instance by the President of the United States of America, having been 
convoked, on the invitation of His Majesty the Emperor of All the 
Russias, by Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, assembled on 
the 15th June, 1907, at The Hague, in the Hall of the Knights, for the 
purpose of giving a fresh development to the humanitarian principles 
which served as a basis for the work of the First Conference of 1899. 

The following Powers took part in the Conference, and appointed 
the Delegates named below: 
Germany: 

His Excellency Baron Marschall de Bieberstein, Minister of* State, 
Imperial Ambassador at Constantinople, First Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary; 
M. Kriege, Imperial Envoy on Extraordinary Mission at the present 
Conference. Privy Councillor of Legation and Legal Adviser to 
the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Member of the Permanent Court 
of Arbitration, Second Delegate Plenipotentiary; 
Rear-Admiral Siegel, Naval Attache to the Imperial Embassy at 

Paris, Naval Delegate; 
Major-General de Gundell, Quarter-Master General of the General 

Staff of the Royal Prussian Army, Military Delegate; 
M. Zorn, Professor to the Faculty of Law at the University of 
Bonn, Judicial Privy Councillor, Member of the Prussian Upper 
Chamber, and Crown Syndic, Scientific Delegate; 
M. Goppert, Councillor of Legation and Councillor attached to the 

Department for Foreign Affairs, Assistant Delegate; 
M. Retzmann, Lieutenant-Commander on the Naval General 
Staff, Assistant Naval Delegate. 
The United States of America : 

His Excellency Mr. Joseph H. Choate, ex-Ambassador at London, 

Ambassador Extraordinary, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 
His Excellency Mr. Horace Porter, ex-Ambassador at Paris, 

Ambassador Extraordinary, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 
His Excellency Mr. Uriah M. Rose, Ambassador Extraordinary, 
Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

117 



118 APPENDIX. 

The United States of America — Continued. 

His Excellency Mr. David Jayne Hill, ex-Assistant Secretary of 
State, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at 
The Hague, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

Rear-Admiral Charles S. Sperry, ex-President of the Naval War 
College, Minister Plenipotentiary, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

Brigadier-General George B. Davis, Judge Advocate-General of 
the United States' Army, Minister Plenipotentiary, Delegate 
Plenipotentiary; 
. Mr. William I. Buchanan, ex -Minister at Buenos Ayres, ex-Minister 
at Panama, Minister Plenipotentiary, Delegate Plenipotentiary. 

Mr. James Brown Scott, Solicitor for the Department of State, 
Technical Delegate; 

Mr. Charles Henry Butler, Reporter of the Supreme Court, Tech- 
nical Delegate. 
The Argentine Republic: 

His Excellency M. Roque Saenz Pena, ex-Minister for Foreign 
Affairs, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at 
Rome, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Delegate 
Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. Luis M. Drago, ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs, 
Deputy, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Dele- 
gate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. Carlos Rodriguez Larreta, ex-Minister for 
Foreign Affairs, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, 
Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

General Francisco Reynolds, Military Attache" at Berlin, Technical 
Delegate; 

Captain Juan A. Martin, ex-Minister of Marine, Naval Attache' at 
London, Technical Delegate. 
Austria-Hungary: 

His Excellency M. Gaetan Mercy de Kapos-Mere, Privy Councillor 
of His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, Ambassador Ex- 
traordinary and Plenipotentiary, First Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency Baron Charles de Macchio, Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary at Athens, Second Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary; 

M. Henri Lammasch, Professor at the University of Vienna, Aulic 
Councillor, Member of the Austrian Upper Chamber of the 
Reichsrath, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, 
Scientific Delegate; 

M. Antoine Haus, Rear-Admiral, Naval Delegate; 

Baron Wladimir Giesl de Gieslingen, Major-General, Military 
Plenipotentiary at the Imperial and Royal Embassy at Constan- 
tinople and at the Imperial and Royal Legation at Athens, Mili- 
tary Delegate; 

The Chevalier Othon de Weil, Aulic and Ministerial Councillor at 
the Ministry of the Imperial and Royal Household and of Foreign 
Affairs, Delegate; 

M. Jules Szilassy de Szilas et Pilis, Councillor of Legation, Delegate; 

M. Emile Konek de Norwall, Naval Lieutenant of the First Class, 
Delegate Attached. 



FINAL ACT. 119 

Belgium: 

His Excellency M. A. Beernaert, Minister of State, Member of the 
Chamber of Representatives, Member of the Institute of France 
and of the Royal Academies of Belgium and Roumania, Honorary 
Member of the Institute of International Law, Member of the 
Permanent Court of Arbitration, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. J. van den Heuvel, Minister of State, ex- 
Minister of Justice, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency Baron Guillaume, Envoy Extraordinary and Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary at The Hague, Member of the Royal 
Academy of Roumania, Delegate Plenipotentiary. 
Bolivia: 

His Excellency M. Claudio Pinilla, Minister for Foreign Affairs, 
Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary; 

His Excellency M. Fernando E. Guachalla, Minister Plenipoten- 
tiary at London, Delegate Plenipotentiary. 
Brazil: 

His Excellency M. Ruy Barbosa, Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary, Vice-President of the Senate, Member of the 
Permanent Court of Arbitration, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. Eduardo F. S. dos Santos Lisboa, Envoy Extra- 
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague, Delegate 
Plenipotentiary; 

Colonel Roberto Trompowsky Leitao de Almeida, Military Attache 1 
at The Hague, Technical Delegate; 

Commander Tancredo Burlamaqui de Moura, Technical Delegate. 
Bulgaria: 

Major-General on the staff Vrban Vinaroff, General h la suite, First 
Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. Ivan Karandjouloff, Procureur-General of the Court of Cassa- 
tion, Second Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

Commander S. Dimitrieff, Chief of the Staff of the Bulgarian 
Flotilla, Delegate. 
Chile: 

His Excellency M. Domingo Gana, Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at London, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. Augusto Matte, Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at Berlin, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. Carlos Concha, ex-Minister of War, ex-President 
of the Chamber of Deputies, ex-Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at Buenos Ayres, Delegate Plenipo- 
tentiary. 
China: 

His Excellency Mr. Lu Tseng-Tsiang, Ambassador Extraordinary, 
Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency the Honourable John W. Foster, ex-Secretary 
of State at the United States' Department for Foreign Affairs, 
Delegate Plenipotentiary; 



120 APPENDIX. 

China — Continued. 

His Excellency Mr. Tsien-Sun, Envoy Extraordinary and Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary at The Hague, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

Colonel W. S. Y. Tinge, Judge Advocate-General at the War 
Office, Military Delegate; 

Mr. Chang Ching Tong, Secretary of Legation, Assistant Delegate; 

Mr. Chao-Hi-Chiu, ex-Secretary of the Imperial Chinese Mission 
and Legation at Paris and Rome, Assistant Delegate. 
Colombia: 

General Jorge Holguin, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. Santiago Perez Triana, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency General M. Vargas, Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris, Delegate Plenipotentiary. 
The Republic of Cuba: 

M. Antonio Sanchez de Bustamante, Professor of International 
Law at the University of Havana, Senator of the Republic, 
Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. Gonzalo de Quesada y Arostegui, Envoy 
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Washington, 
Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. Manuel Sanguily, ex-Director of the Institute of Secondary 
Education at Havana, Senator of the Republic, Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary. 
Denmark: 

His Excellency M. C. Brun, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary at Washington, First Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

Rear-Admiral C. F. Scheller, Second Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. A. Vedel, Chamberlain, Head of Department at the Royal 
Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Third Delegate Plenipotentiary. 
The Dominican Republic: 

M. Francisco Henriquez i Carvajal, ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs, 
Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary; 

M. Apolinar Tejera, Rector of the Professional Institute of Santo 
Domingo, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, 
Delegate Plenipotentiary. 
The Republic of the Ecuador: 

His Excellency M. Victor Rendon, Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris and Madrid, Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary; 

M. Enrique Dorn y de Alsua, Charge d'Affaires, Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary. 
Spain: 

His Excellency M. W. R. De Villa-Urrutia, Senator, ex-Minister 
for Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipo- 
tentiary at London, First Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. Jose de la Rica y Calvo, Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague, Delegate Plenipo- 
tentiary; 



FINAL ACT. 121 

Spain — Continued . 

M. Gabriel Maura y Garnazo, Count de la Mortera, Deputy to the 
Cortes, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. J. Jofre Montojo, Colonel on the Staff, Aide-de-camp to the 
Minister of War, Assistant Military Delegate; 

Captain Francisco Chacon, Assistant Naval Delegate. 
France : 

His Excellency M. Leon Bourgeois, Ambassador Extraordinary, 
Senator, ex-President of the Council, ex-Minister for Foreign 
Affairs, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Delegate, 
First Plenipotentiary; 

Baron d'Estournelle3 de Constant, Senator, Minister Plenipoten- 
tiary of the First Class, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbi- 
tration, Delegate, Second Plenipotentiary; 

M. Louis Renault, Professor at the Faculty of Law at Paris, Honor- 
ary Minister Plenipotentiary, Legal Adviser to the Ministry for 
Foreign Affairs, Member of the Institute, Member of the Perma- 
nent Court of Arbitration, Delegate, Third Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. Marcellin Pellet, Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague, Delegate, Fourth 
Plenipotentiary ; 

General of Division Amourel, Military Delegate; 

Rear-Admiral Arago, Naval Delegate; 

M. Fromageot, Advocate at the Court of Appeal at Paris, Technical 
Delegate; 

Captain Lacaze, Second Naval Delegate; 

Lieutenant-Colonel Siben, Military Attache at Brussels and The 
Hague, Second Military Delegate. 
Great Britain: 

His Excellency the Right Honourable Sir Edward Fry, G.C.B., 
Member of the Privy Council, Ambassador Extraordinary, Mem- 
ber of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Delegate Plenipo- 
tentiary; 

His Excellency the Right Honorable Sir Ernest Mason Satow, 
G.C.M.G., Member of the Privy Council, Member of the Perma- 
nent Court of Arbitration, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency the Right Honorable Lord Reay, G.C.S.I., 
G.C.I.E., Member of the Privy Council, ex-President of the 
Institute of International Law, Delegate Plenipotentiary. 

His Excellency Sir Henry Howard, K.C.M.G., C.B., Envoy Ex- 
traordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague, Delegate 
Plenipotentiary; 

Lieutenant-General Sir Edmond R. Elles, G.C.I.E., K.C.B., Mili- 
tary Delegate; 

Captain C. L. Ottley, M.V.O., R.N., A.D.C., Naval Delegate; 

Mr. Eyre Crowe, Councillor of Embassy, Technical Delegate, First 
Secretary to the delegation; 

Mr. Cecil Hurst, Councillor of Embassy, Technical Delegate, Legal 
Adviser to the delegation; 



122 APPENDIX. 

Great Britain — Continued. 

Lieutenant-Colonel the Honourable Henry Yarde-Buller, D.S.O., 
Military Attache at The Hague, Technical Delegate; 

Commander J. R. Segrave, R.N., Technical Delegate; 

Major George K. Cockerill, General Staff, Technical Delegate. 
Greece: 

His Excellency M. Cleon Rizo Rangabe\ Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at Berlin, First Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. Georges Streit, Professor of International Law at the University 
of Athens, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Sec- 
ond Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

Colonel of Artillery C. Sapountzakis, Chief of the General Staff, 
Technical Delegate. 
Guatemala: 

M. Jose Tible Machado, Charge d'Affaires at The Hague and Lon- 
don, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Delegate 
Plenipotentiary; 

M. Enrique Gomez Carrillo, Charge d'Affaires at Berlin, Delegate 
Plenipotentiary. 
The Republic of Haiti: 

His Excellency M. Jean Joseph Dalbemar, Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. J. N. Leger, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary at Washington, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. Pierre Hudicourt, ex-Professor of International Public Law, 
Advocate at the Bar of Port-au-Prince, Delegate Plenipotentiary. 
Italy: 

His Excellency Count Joseph Tornielli Brusati di Vergano, Senator 
of the Kingdom, Ambassador of His Majesty the King at Paris, 
Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, President of the 
Italian delegation, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. Guido Pompilj, Parliamentary Deputy, Under- 
Secretary of State at the Royal Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 
Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. Guido Fusinato, Councillor of State, Parliamentary Deputy, 
ex-Minister of Education, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. Marius Nicolis de Robilant, General of Brigade, Technical 
Delegate; 

M. Francois Castiglia, Captain in the Navy, Technical Delegate. 
Japan: 

His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki, Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary, First Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency Mr. Aimaro Sato, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary at The Hague, Second Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

Mr. Henry Willard Denison, Legal Adviser to the Imperial Min- 
istry for Foreign Affairs, Member of the Permanent Court of 
Arbitration, Technical Delegate; 

Major-General Yoshifuru Akiyama, Inspector of Cavalry, Technical 
Delegate; 

Rear-Admiral Hayao Shimamura, President of the Naval College 
at Etajima, Technical Delegate. . 



FINAL ACT. 123 

Luxemburg: 

His Excellency M. Eyschen, Minister of State, President of the 
Grand-Ducal Government, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

Count de Villiers, Charge d'Affaires at Berlin, Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary. 
Mexico: 

His Excellency M. Gonzalo A. Esteva, Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at Rome, First Delegate Plenipotentiary: 

His Excellency M. Sebastian B. de Mier, Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris, Second Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary; 

His Excellency M. Francisco L. de la Barra, Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary at Brussels and at The Hague, 
Third Delegate Plenipotentiary. 
Montenegro: 

His Excellency M. Nelidow, Privy Councillor, Russian Ambas- 
sador at Paris, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. de Martens, Privy Councillor, Permanent 
Member of the Council of the Imperial Russian Ministry for 
Foreign Affairs, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. Tcharykow, Councillor of State, Chamberlain, 
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Russia at 
The Hague, Delegate Plenipotentiary. 
Nicaragua: 

His Excellency M. Crisanto Medina, Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris, Delegate Plenipotentiary. 
Norway: 

His Excellency M. Francis Hagerup, ex-President of the Council, 
ex-Professor of Law, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbi- 
tration, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at 
The Hague and Copenhagen, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. Joachim Grieg, Shipowner and Deputy, Technical Delegate. 

M. Christian Lous Lange, Secretary to the Nobel Committee of the 
Norwegian Storthing, Technical Delegate. 
Panama: 

M. Belisario Porras, Delegate Plenipotentiary. 
Paraguay : 

His Excellency M. Eusebio Machain, Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris, Delegate Plenipotentiary. 
The Netherlands: 

M. W. H. de Beaufort, ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs, Member of 
the Second Chamber of the States-General, Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary; 

His Excellency M. T. M. C. Asser, Minister of State, Member of the 
Council of State, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, 
Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency Jonkheer J. C. C. Den Beer Poortugael, Lieu- 
tenant-General on the retired list, ex-Minister of War, Member of 
the Council of State, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 



124 APPENDIX. 

The Netherlands — Continued. 

His Excellency Jonkheer J. A. Roell, Aide-de-camp to Her Majesty 
the Queen in Extraordinary Service, Vice-Admiral on the re- 
tired list, ex-Minister of Marine, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. J. A. Loeff, ex-Minister of Justice, Member of the Second Cham- 
ber of the States-General, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. H. L. van Oordt, Lieutenant-Colonel on the Staff, Professor 
at the Higher Military College, Technical Delegate; 

M. Jonkheer W. J. M. van Eysinga, Head of the Political Section 
at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Assistant Delegate; 

M. Jonkheer H. A. van Karnebeek, Gentleman of the Chamber, 
Assistant Head of Department at the Colonial Office, Assistant 
Delegate; 

M. H. G. Surie, Naval Lieutenant of the First Class, Technical 

Delegate. 
Peru: 

His Excellency M. Carlos G. Candamo, Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris and London, Member of the 
Permanent Court of Arbitration, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. Gustavo de la Fuente, First Secretary of Legation at Paris, As- 
sistant Delegate. 
Persia: 

His Excellency Samad Khan, Momtas-es-Saltaneh, Envoy Extraor- 
dinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris, Member of the 
Permanent Court of Arbitration, ..Delegate, First Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency Mirza Ahmed Khan Sadig-ul-Mulkh, Envoy Ex- 
traordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague, Dele- 
gate Plenipotentiary; 

M. Hennebicq, Legal Adviser to the Minister for Foreign Affairs 
at Tehran, Technical Delegate. 
Portugal : 

His Excellency the Marquis de Soveral, Councillor of State, Peer of 
the Realm, ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs, Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary at London, Ambassador Extraordi- 
nary and Plenipotentiary, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency Count de Selir, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary at The Hague, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. Alberto d'Oliveira, Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at Berne, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

Lieutenant-Colonel Thomaz Antonio Garcia Rosado, General Staff, 
Technical Delegate; 

M. Guilherme Ivens Ferraz, Lieutenant-Commander in the Navy, 
Technical Delegate. 
Roumania: 

His Excellency M. Alexandre Beldiman, Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary at Berlin, First Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary; 

His Excellency M. Edgard Mavrocordato, Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague, Second Delegate 
Plenipotentiary ; 

Captain Alexander Sturdza, General Staff, Technical Delegate. 



FINAL ACT. 125 

Russia: 

His Excellency M. Nelidow, Privy Councillor, Russian Ambassa- 
dor at Paris, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. de Martens, Privy Councillor, Permanent Mem- 
ber of the Council of the Imperial Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 
Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary; 

His Excellency M. Tcharykow, Councillor of State, Chamberlain, 
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The 
Hague, Delegate Plenpiotentiary; 

M. Prozor, Councillor of State, Chamberlain, Russian Minister at 
Rio de Janeiro, Technical Delegate; 

Major-General Yermolow, Military Attache at London, Technical 
Delegate; 

Colonel Michelson, Military Attache at Berlin, Technical Delegate. 

Captain Behr, Naval Attache at London, Technical Delegate; 

Colonel Ovtchinnikow, of the Admiralty, Professor of Interna- 
tional Law at the Naval Academy, Technical Delegate. 
Salvador: 

M. Pedro J. Matheu, Charge d'Affaires at Paris, Member of the 
Permanent Court of Arbitration, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. Santiago Perez Triana, Charge d'Affaires at London, Member 
of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Delegate Plenipotentiary. 
Servia : 

His Excellency General Sava Grouitch, President of the Council 
of State, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. Milovan Milovanovitch, Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary at Rome, Member of the Perma- 
nent Court of Arbitration, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

His Excellency M. Michel Militchevitch, Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary at London and The Hague, Dele- 
gate Plenipotentiary. 
Siam: 

Major-General Mom Chatidej Udom, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. Corragioni d'Orelli, Councillor of Legation at Paris, Delegate 
Plenipotentiary ; 

Captain Luang Bhuvanarth Nariibal, Delegate Plenipotentiary. 
Sweden: 

His Excellency M. Knut Hjalmar Leonard de Hammarskjold, 
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Copen- 
hagen, ex-Minister of Justice, Member of the Premanent Court 
of Arbitration, First Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

M. Johannes Hellner, ex-Minister without Portfolio, ex-Member 
of the Supreme Court of Sweden, Member of the Permanent 
Court of Arbitration, Second Delegate Plenipotentiary; 

Colonel David Hedengren, Commanding a Regiment of Artillery, 
Technical Delegate; 

Commander Gustaf de Klint, Head of a Section on the Staff of the 
Royal_Navy,JTechnical_Delegate. 



126 APPENDIX. 

Switzerland: 

His Excellency M. Gaston Carlin, Envoy Extraordinary and Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary at London and The Hague, Delegate 
Plenipotentiary; 
M. Eugene Borel, Colonel on the General Staff, Professor at the 

University of Geneva, Delegate Plenipotentiary; 
M. Max Huber, Professor of Law at the University of Zurich, 
Delegate Plenipotentiary. 
Turkey: 

His Excellency Turkhan Pasha, Ambassador Extraordinary, Min- 
ister of the Evkaf, First Delegate Plenipotentiary; 
His Excellency Rechid Bey, Turkish Ambassador at Rome, Dele- 
gate Plenipotentiary; 
His Excellency Vice-Admiral Mehemmed Pasha, Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary; 
Ra'if Bey, Legal Adviser on the Civil List, Assistant Delegate; 
Colonel on the Staff Mehemmed Said Bey, Assistant Delegate. 
Uruguay: 

M. Jose Batlle y Ordonez, ex-President of the Republic, Member 
of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, First Delegate Plenipo- 
tentiary; 
His Excellency M. Juan P. Castro, ex-President of the Senate, 
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris, 
Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary; 
Colonel Sebastian Buquet, Commanding a Regiment of Field 
Artillery, Technical Delegate. 
The United States of Venezuela: 

M. Jose Gil Fortoul, Charge d'Affaires at Berlin, Delegate Pleni- 
potentiary. 
At a series of meetings, held from the 15th June to the 18th October, 
.1907, in which the above Delegates were throughout animated by the 
desire to realize, in the fullest possible measure, the generous views of 
the august initiator of the Conference and the intentions of their Gov- 
ernments, the Conference drew up for submission for signature by the 
Plenipotentiaries, the text of the Conventions and of the Declaration 
enumerated below and annexed to the present Act: 

1. Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Dis- 

putes. 

2. Convention respecting the Limitation of the Employment of 

Force for the Recovery of Contract Debts. 

3. Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities. 

4. Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. 

5. Convention respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral 

Powers and Persons in case of War on Land. 
6._Convention relative to the Status of Enemy Merchant-ships at 
the Outbreak of Hostilities. . 



FINAL ACT. 127 

7. Convention relative to the Conversion of Merchant-ships into 

War-ships. 

8. Convention relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine 

Contact Mines. 

9. Convention respecting Bombardment by Naval Forcesln Time 

of War. 

10. Convention for the Adaptation to Naval War of the Principles 

of the Geneva Convention. 

11. Convention relative to certain Restrictions with regard to the 

Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War. 

12. Convention relative to the creation of an International Prize 

Court. 

13. Convention concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral 

Powers in Naval War. 

14. Declaration prohibiting the discharge of Projectiles and Explo- 

sives from Balloons. 

These Conventions and Declaration shall form so many separate Acts. 
These Acts shall be dated this day, and may be signed up to the 30th 
June, 1908, at The Hague, by the Plenipotentiaries of the Powers rep- 
resented at the Second Peace Conference. 

The Conference actuated by the spirit of mutual agreement and con- 
cession characterizing its deliberations, has agreed upon the following 
Declaration, which, while reserving to each of the Powers represented 
full liberty of action as regards voting, enables them to affirm the prin- 
ciples which they regard as unanimously admitted: 

It is unanimous — 

1. In admitting the principle of compulsory arbitration. 

2. In declaring that certain disputes, in particular those relating to 

the interpretation and application of the provisions of Inter- 
national Agreements, may be submitted to compulsory arbi- 
tration without any restriction. 

Finally, it is unanimous in proclaiming that, although it has not yet 
been found feasible to conclude a Convention in this sense, nevertheless 
the divergences of opinion which have come to light have not exceeded 
the bounds of judicial controversy, and that, by working together here 
during the past four months, the collected Powers not only have learned 
to understand one another and to draw closer together, but have suc- 
ceeded in the course of this long collaboration in evolving a very lofty 
conception of the common welfare of humanity. 

The Conference has further unanimously adopted the following 
Resolution: 

The Second Peace Conference confirms the Resolution adopted by the 
Conference of 1899 in regard to the limitation of military expenditure; 
and inasmuch as military expenditure has considerably increased in 
almost every country since that time, the Conference declares that it is 
eminently desirable that the Governments should resume the serious 
examination of this question. 



128 APPENDIX. 

It has besides expressed the following opinions: 

1. The Conference calls the attention of the Signatory Powers to 

the advisability of adopting the annexed draft Convention for 
the creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court, and of bringing it 
into force as soon as an agreement has been reached respecting 
the selection of the Judges and the constitution of the Court. 

2. The Conference expresses the opinion that, in case of war, the 

responsible authorities, civil as well as military, should make 
it their special duty to ensure and safeguard the maintenance 
of pacific relations, more especially of the commercial and 
industrial relations between the inhabitants of the belligerent 
States and neutral countries. 

3. The Conference expresses the opinion that the Powers should 

regulate, by special Treaties, the position, as regards military 
charges, of foreigners residing within their territories. 

4. The Conference expresses the opinion that the preparation of 

regulations relative to the laws and customs of naval war 
should figure in the programme of the next Conference, and 
that in any case the Powers may apply, as far as possible, 
to war by sea the principles of the Convention relative to 
the Laws and Customs of War on land. 
Finally, the Conference recommends to the Powers the assembly of 
a Third Peace Conference, which might be held within a period cor- 
responding to that which has elapsed since the preceding Conference, 
at a date to be fixed by common agreement between the Powers, and 
it calls their attention to the necessity of preparing the programme of 
this Third Conference a sufficient time in advance to ensure its delib- 
erations being conducted with the necessary authority and expedi- 
tion. 

In order to attain this object the Conference considers that it would 
be very desirable that, some two years before the probable date of the 
meeting, a preparatory Committee should be charged by the Govern- 
ments with the task of collecting the various proposals to be submitted 
to the Conference, of ascertaining what subjects are ripe for embodi- 
ment in an International Regulation, and of preparing a programme 
which the Governments should decide upon in sufficient time to 
enable it to be carefully examined by the countries interested. This 
Committee should further be intrusted with the task of proposing a 
system of organization and procedure for the Conference itself. 

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Act 
and have affixed their seals thereto. <* 

Done at The Hague, the 18th October, 1907, in a single copy, which 
shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherlands Government, 
and duly certified copies of which shall be sent to all the Powers 
represented at the Conference. 

a See at end. Table of Signatures. 



JUDICIAL ARBITRATION COURT. 129 

Annex to the First Opinion expressed by the Second Peace 

Conference. 

Draft Convention relative to the Creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court. 

Part I. — Constitution of the Judicial Arbitration Court. 

Article 1. 

With a view to promoting the cause of arbitration, the Contracting 
Powers agree to constitute, without altering the status of the Permanent 
Court of Arbitration, a Judicial Arbitration Court, of free and easy- 
access, composed of Judges representing the various juridical systems 
of the world, and capable of insuring continuity in jurisprudence of 
arbitration. 

Article 2. 

The Judicial Arbitration Court is composed of Judges and Deputy 
Judges chosen from persons of the highest moral reputation, and all ful- 
filling conditions qualifying them, in their respective countries, to 
occupy high legal posts, or be jurists of recognized competence in mat- 
ters of international law. 

The Judges and Deputy Judges of the Court are appointed, as far as 
possible, from the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. 
The appointment shall be made within the six months following the 
ratification of the present Convention. 

Article 3. 

The Judges and Deputy Judges are appointed for a period of twelve 
years, counting from the date on which the appointment is notified to 
the Administrative Council created by the Convention for the Pacific 
Settlement of International Disputes. Their appointments can be 
renewed. 

Should a Judge or Deputy Judge die or retire, the vacancy is filled in 
the manner in which his appointment was made. In this case, the 
appointment is made for a fresh period of twelve years. 

Article 4. 

The Judges of the Judicial Arbitration Court are equal and rank 
according to the date on which their appointment was notified. The 
Judge who is senior in point of age takes precedence when the date of 
notification is the same. 

The Deputy Judges are assimilated, in the exercise of their functions, 
with the Judges. They rank, however, below the latter. 

Article 5. 

The Judges enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities in the exer- 
cise of their functions, outside their own country. 
55983—09 9 






130 APPENDIX. 

Before taking~[their seat, the Judges and Deputy Judges must swear, 
before the Administrative .Council, or make a solemn affirmation to ex- 
ercise their functions impartially and conscientiously. 

Article 6. 

The Court annually nominates three Judges to form a special delega- 
tion and three more to replace them should the necessity arise. They 
may be re-elected. They are balloted for. The persons who secure the 
largest number of votes are considered elected. The delegation itself 
elects its President, who, in default of a majority, is appointed by lot. 

A member of the delegation cannot exercise his duties when the 
Power which appointed him, or of which he is a national, is one of the 
parties. 

The members of the delegation are to conclude all matters submitted 
to them, even if the period for which they have been appointed Judges 
has expired. 

Article 7. 

A Judge may not exercise his judicial functions in any casein which 
he has, in any way whatever, taken part in the decision of a National 
Tribunal, of a Tribunal of Arbitration, or of a Commission of Inquiry, or 
has figured in the suit as counsel or advocate for one of the parties. 

A Judge cannot act as agent or advocate before t"he Judicial Arbitra- 
tion Court or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, before a Special Tri- 
bunal of Arbitration or a Commission of Inquiry, nor act for one of the 
parties in any capacity whatsoever so long as his appointment lasts. 

Article 8. 

The Court elects its President and Vice-President by an absolute 
majority of the votes cast. After two ballots, the election is made by 
a bare majority and, in case the votes are even, by lot. 

Article 9. 

The Judges of the Judicial Arbitration Court receive an annual salary 
of 6,000 Netherlands florins. This salary is paid at the end of each 
half-year, reckoned from the date on which the Court meets for the 
first time. 

In the exercise of their duties during the sessions or in the special 
cases covered by the present Convention, they receive the sum of 100 
florins per diem. They are further entitled to receive a travelling 
allowance fixed in accordance with Regulations existing in their own 
country. The provisions of the present paragraph are applicable also 
to a Deputy Judge when acting for a Judge. 

These emoluments are included in the general expenses of the Court 
dealt with in Article 31 and are paid through the International Bureau 
created ^by the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International 
Disputes. % 



JUDICIAL ARBITRATION COURT. 131 

Article 10. 

The Judges may not accept from their own Government or from that 
of any other Power any remuneration for services connected with their 
duties in their capacity of members of the Court. 

Article 11. 

The seat of the Judicial Court of Arbitration is at The Hague, and 
cannot be transferred, unless absolutely obliged by circumstances, 
elsewhere. 

The delegation may choose, with the assent of the parties concerned, 
another site for its meetings, if special circumstances render such a 
step necessary. 

Article 12. 

The Administrative Council fulfils with regard to the Judicial Court 
of Arbitration the same functions as to the Permanent Court of Arbi- 
tration. 

Article 13. 

The International Bureau acts as registry to the Judicial Court of 
Arbitration, and must place its offices and staff at the disposal of the 
Court. It has charge of the archives and carries out the administrative 
work. 

The Secretary-General of the Bureau discharges the functions of 
Registrar. 

The necessary secretaries to assist the Registrar, translators and 
shorthand writers are appointed and sworn in by the Court. 

Article 14. 

The Court meets in session once a year. The session opens the third 
Wednesday in June and lasts until all the business on the agenda has 
been transacted. 

The Court does not meet in session if the delegation considers that 
such meeting is unnecessary. However, when a Power is party in a 
case actually pending before the Court, the pleadings in which are 
closed, or about to be closed, it may insist that the session should 
be held. 

When necessary, the delegation may summon the Court in extraor- 
dinary session. 

Article 15. 

A Report of the doings of the Court shall be drawn up every year by 
the delegation. This Report shall be forwarded to the Contracting 
Powers through the International Bureau. It shall also be communi- 
cated to the Judges and Deputy Judges of the Court. 

Article 16. 

The^Judges and Deputy Judges, members of the Judicial Arbitration 
Court, can also exercise the functions of Judge and Deputy Judge in 
the International Prize Court. 



132 APPENDIX. 

Part II. — Competency and Procedure. 

Article 17. 

The Judicial Court of Arbitration is competent to deal with all cases 
submitted to it, in virtue either of a general undertaking to have 
recourse to arbitration or of a special agreement. 

Article 18. 

The delegation is competent — 

1. To decide the arbitrations referred to in the preceding Article, 

if the parties concerned are agreed that the summary proced- 
ure, laid down in Part IV, Chapter IV, of the Convention for 
the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes is to be 
applied; 

2. To hold an inquiry under and in accordance with Part III of 

the said Convention, in so far as the delegation is intrusted with 
such inquiry by the parties acting in common agreement. 
With the assent of the parties concerned, and as an exception 
to Article 7, paragraph l,the members of the delegation who 
have taken part in the inquiry may sit as Judges, if the case in 
dispute is submitted to the arbitration of the Court or of the 
delegation itself. 

Article 19. 

The delegation is also competent to settle the Compromis referred to 
in Article 52 of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of Interna- 
tional Disputes if the parties are agreed to leave it to the Court. 

It is equally competent to do so, even when the request is only made 
by one of the parties concerned, if all attempts have failed to reach an 
understanding through the diplomatic channel, in the case of — 

1. A dispute covered by a general Treaty of Arbitration concluded 

or renewed after the present Convention has come into force, 
providing for a Compromis in all disputes, and not either 
explicitly or implicitly excluding the settlement of the Com- 
promis from the competence of the delegation. Recourse can- 
not, however, be had to the Court if the other party declares 
that in its opinion the dispute does not belong to the category 
of questions to be submitted to compulsory arbitration, unless 
the Treaty of Arbitration confers upon the Arbitration Tri- 
bunal the power of deciding this preliminary question. 

2. A dispute arising from contract debts claimed from one Power 

by another Power as due to its nationals, and for the settle- 
ment of which the offer of arbitration has been accepted. 
This arrangement is not applicable if acceptance is subject to 
the condition that the Compromis should be settled in some 
other way. 

Article 20. 

Each of the parties concerned may nominate a Judge of the Court to 
take part, with power to vote, in the examination of the case sub- 
mitted to the delegation. 



JUDICIAL ARBITRATION COURT. 133 

If the delegation acts as a Commission of Inquiry, this task may be 
intrusted to persons other than the Judges of the Court. The traveling 
expenses and remuneration to be given to the said persons are fixed 
and borne by the Powers appointing them. 

Article 21. 

The Contracting Powers only may have access to the Judicial Arbi- 
tration Court set up by the present Convention. 

Article 22. 

The Judicial Court of Arbitration follows the rules of procedure laid 
down in the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International 
Disputes, except in so far as the procedure is laid down in the present 
Convention. 

Article 23. 

The Court determines what language it will itself use and what lan- 
guages may be used before it. 

Article 24. 

The International Bureau serves as channel for all communications 
to be made to the Judges during the interchange of pleadings provided 
for in Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Pacific Settle- 
ment of International Disputes. 

Article 25. 

For all notices to be served, in particular on the parties, witnesses, 
or experts, the Court may apply direct to the Government of the State 
on whose territory the service is to be carried out. The same rule 
applies in the case of steps being taken to procure evidence. 

The requests addressed for this purpose can only be rejected when the 
Power applied to considers them likely to impair its sovereign rights 
or its safety. If the request is complied with, the fees charged must 
only comprise the expenses actually incurred. 

The Court is equally entitled to act through the Power on whose 
territory it sits. 

Notices to be given to parties in the place where the Court sits may 
be served through the International Bureau. 

Article 26. 

The discussions are under the control of the President or Vice-Presi- 
dent, or, in case they are absent or cannot act, of the senior Judge 
present. 

The Judge appointed by one of the parties cannot preside. 

Article 27. 

The Court considers its decisions in private, and the proceedings are 
secret. 



134 APPENDIX. 

All decisions are arrived at by a majority of the Judges present. If 
the number of Judges is even and equally divided, the vote of the 
junior Judge, in the order of precedence laid down in Article IV, para- 
graph 1, is not counted. 

Article 28. 

The judgment of the Court must give the reasons on which it is based. 
It contains the names of the Judges taking part in it; it is signed by 
the President and Registrar. 

Article 29. 

Each party pays its own costs and an equal share of the costs of the 
trial. 

Article 30. 

The provisions of Articles 21 to 29 are applicable by analogy to the 
procedure before the delegation. 

When the right of attaching a member to the delegation has been 
exercised by one of the parties only, the vote of the member attached 
is not recorded if the votes are evenly divided. 

Article 31. 

The general expenses of the Court are borne by the Contracting 
Powers. 

The Administrative Council applies to the Powers to obtain the 
funds requisite for the working of the Court. 

Article 32. 

The Court itself draws up its own rules of procedure, which must be 
communicated to the Contracting Powers. 

After the ratification of the present Convention the Court shall meet 
as early as possible in order to elaborate these rules, elect the President 
and Vice-President, and appoint the members of the delegation. 

Article 33. 

The Court may propose modifications in the provisions of the present 
Convention concerning procedure. These proposals are communi- 
cated through the Netherlands Government to the Contracting Powers , 
which will consider together as to the measures to be taken. 

Part III . — Fina I Provisions . 

Article 34. 

The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible. 

The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague. 

A procfo-verbal of the deposit of each ratification shall be drawn up, 
of which a duly certified copy shall be sent through the diplomatic 
channel to all the Signatory Powers. 



SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. 135 

Article 35. 

The Convention shall come into force six months after its ratification. 

It shall remain in force for twelve years, and shall be tacitly renewed 
for periods of twelve years, unless denounced. 

The denunciation must be notified, at least two years before the 
expiration of each period, to the Netherlands Government, which will 
inform the other Powers. 

The denunciation shall only have effect in regard to the notifying 
Power. The Convention shall continue in force as far as the other 
Powers are concerned. 



CONVENTION FOR THE PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF 
INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. 

Signed by the United States Delegates. Ratification advised by the Senate, 

April 2, 1908. 

The Contracting Powers (see Final Act) animated by a sincere desire 
to work for the maintenance of general peace; 

Resolved to promote by all the efforts in their power the friendly 
settlement of international disputes; 

Recognizing the solidarity uniting the members of the society of 
civilized nations; 

Desirous of extending the empire of law and of strengthening the 
appreciation of international justice; 

Convinced that the permanent institution of a Tribunal of Arbitra- 
tion accessible to all, in the midst of independent Powers, will con- 
tribute effectively to this result; 

Having regard to the advantages attending the general and regular 
organization of the procedure of arbitration; 

Sharing the opinion of the august initiator of the International Peace 
Conference that it is expedient to record in an International Agreement 
the principles of equity and right on which are based the security of 
States and the welfare of peoples; 

Being desirous, with this object, of insuring the better working in 
practice of Commissions of Inquiry and Tribunals of Arbitration, and 
of facilitating recourse to arbitration in cases which allow of a summary 
procedure; 

Have deemed it necessary to revise in certain particulars and to 
complete the work of the First Peace Conference for the pacific settle- 
ment of international disputes; 

The High Contracting Parties have resolved to conclude a new Con- 
vention for this purpose, and have appointed the following as their 
Plenipotentiaries : 

[For names of Plenipotentiaries, see Final Act ] 



136 



APPENDIX. 



Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and 
due form, have agreed upon the following: 

Part I. — The Maintenance of Gen- Titre I. — Du maintien de la paix 
eral Peace. generate. 



Article 1. 

With a view to obviating as far 
as possible recourse to force in the 
relations between States, the Con- 
tracting Powers agree to use their 
best efforts to ensure the pacific 
settlement of international differ- 



ences. 



Part II.- 



Good Offices and Media- 
tion. 

Article 2. 



In case of serious disagreement 
or dispute, . before an appeal to 
arms, the Contracting Powers agree 
to have recourse, as far as circum- 
stances allow, to the good offices or 
mediation of one or more friendly 
Powers. 



Article 3. 

Independently of this recourse, 
the Contracting Powers deem it 
expedient and desirable that one 
or more Powers, strangers to the 
dispute, should, on their own in- 
itiative and as far as circumstances 
may allow, offer their good offices 
or mediation to the States at vari- 
ance. 

Powers strangers to the dispute 
have the right to offer good offices 
or mediation even during the 
course of hostilities. 

The exercise of this right can 
never be regarded by either of the 
parties in dispute as an unfriendly 
act. 



Article Premier. 

En vue de prevenir autant que 
possible le recours a la force dans 
les rapports entre les Etats, les 
Puissances contractantes convien- 
nent d' employer tous leurs efforts 
pour assurer le reglement pacifique 
des differends internationaux. 

Titre II. — Des bons offices et de la 
mediation. 

Article 2. 

En cas de dissentiment grave ou 
de conflit, avant d'en appeler aux 
amies, les Puissances contractantes 
conviennent d^'avoir recours, en 
tant que les circonstances le per- 
mettront, aux bons offices ou a la 
mediation d'une ou de plusieurs 
Puissances amies. 

Article 3. 

Independamment de ce recours, 
les Puissances contractantes jugent 
utile et desirable qu'une ou plu- 
sieurs Puissances etrangeres au 
conflit off rent de leur propre initia- 
tive, en tant que les circonstances 
s'y pretent, leurs bons offices ou 
leur mediation aux Etats en conflit. 

Le droit d'offrir les bons offices 
ou la mediation appartient aux 
Puissances etrangeres au conflit, 
meme pendant le cours des hos- 
tility . 

L'exercice de ce droit ne peut 
jamais etre considere par l'une ou 
1' autre des Parties en litige comme 
un acte peu amical. 



SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. 



137 



Article 4. 

The part of the mediator con- 
sists in reconciling the opposing 
claims and appeasing the feelings 
of resentment which may have 
arisen between the States at 



variance. 



Article 5. 



The functions of the mediator 
are at an end when once it is de- 
clared, either by one of the parties 
to the dispute or by the mediator 
himself, that the means of recon- 
ciliation proposed by him are not 
accepted. 

Article 6. 

Good offices and mediation un- 
dertaken either at the request of 
the parties in dispute or on the 
initiative of Powers strangers to 
the dispute have exclusively the 
character of advice, and never 
have binding force. 

Article 7. 

The acceptance of mediation 
cannot, unless there be an agree- 
ment to the contrary, have the ef- 
fect of interrupting, delaying, or 
hindering mobilization or other 
measures of preparation for war. 

If it takes place after the com- 
mencement of hostilities, the mili- 
tary operations in progress are not 
interrupted in the absence of an 
agreement to the contrary. 

Article 8. 

The Contracting Powers are 
agreed in recommending the appli- 
cation, when circumstances allow, 
of special mediation in the follow- 
ing form: 



Article 4. 

Le role du mediateur consiste a 
concilier les pretentions opposees 
et a apaiser les ressentiments qui 
peuvent s'etre produits entre les 
Etats en conflit. 

Article 5. 

Les fonctions du mediateur ces- 
sent du moment ou il est constate, 
soit par l'une des Parties en litige, 
soit par le mediateur lui-meme, 
que les moyens de conciliation pro- 
poses par lui ne sont pas acceptes. 

Article 6. 

Les bons offices et la mediation, 
soit sur le recours des Parties en 
conflit, soit sur l'initiative des 
Puissances etrangeres au conflit, 
ont exclusivement le caractere de 
conseil et n'ont jamais force obli- 
gatoire . 

Article 7. 

L'acceptation de la mediation 
ne peut avoir pour effet, sauf con- 
vention contraire, d'interrompre, 
de retard er ou d'entraver la mobi- 
lisation et autres mesures prepara- 
toires a la guerre. 

Si elle intervient apres l'ouver- 
ture des hostilites, elle n'inter- 
rompt pas, sauf convention con- 
traire, les operations militaires en 
cours . 

Article 8. 

Les Puissances contractantes 
sont d' accord pour recommander 
l'application, dans les circon- 
stances qui le permettent, d'une 
mediation speciale sous la forme 
suivante. 



138 



APPENDIX. 



In case of a serious difference 
endangering peace, the States at 
variance choose respectively a 
Power, to which they intrust the 
mission of entering into direct 
communication with the Power 
chosen on the other side, with the 
object of preventing the rupture 
of pacific relations. 

For the period of this mandate, 
the term of which, unless other- 
wise stipulated, cannot exceed 
thirty days, the States in dispute 
cease from all direct communica- 
tion on the subject of the dispute, 
which is regarded as referred ex- 
clusively to the mediating Powers, 
which must use their best efforts 
to settle it. 

In case of a definite rupture of 
pacific relations, these Powers are 
charged with the joint task of tak- 
ing advantage of any opportunity 
to restore peace. 

Part III. — International Commis- 
sions of Inquiry. 

Article 9. 

In disputes of an international 
nature involving neither honor 
nor vital interests, and arising 
from a difference of opinion on 
points of fact, the Contracting 
Powers deem it expedient and de- 
sirable that the parties who have 
not been able to come to an agree- 
ment by means of diplomacy, 
should, as far as circumstances al- 
low, institute an International 
Commission of Inquiry, to facili- 
tate a solution of these disputes by 
elucidating the facts by means of 
an impartial and conscientious 
investigation. 

Article 10. 

International Commissions of In- 
quiry are constituted by special 
agreement between the parties in 
dispute. 



En cas de differend grave com- 
promettant la paix, les Etats en 
conflit choisissent respectivement 
une Puissance a laquelle ils con- 
fient la mission d'entrer en rapport 
direct avec la Puissance choisie 
d'autre part, a l'effet de prevenir 
la rupture des relations pacifiques. 

Pendant la duree de ce mandat 
dont le'terme, sauf stipulation con- 
traire, ne peut exceder trente jours> 
les Etats en litige cessent tout rap- 
port direct au sujet du conflit, le- 
quel est considere comme defere 
exclusivement aux Puissances me- 
diatrices. Celles-ci doivent appli- 
quer tous leurs efforts a regler le 
differend. 

En cas de rupture effective des 
relations pacifiques, ces Puis- 
sances demeurent chargees de la 
mission commune de profiter de 
toute occasion pour retablir la 
paix. 

Titre III. — Des Commissions in- 
ternational d'enquUe. 

Article 9. 

Dans les litiges d'ordre inter- 
national n'engageant ni l'honneur 
ni des interets essentiels et pro- 
venant d'une divergence d' appre- 
ciation sur des points de fait, les 
Puissances contractantes jugent 
utile et desirable que les Parties 
qui n'auraient pu se mettre d'ac- 
cord par les voies diplomatiques 
instituent, en tant que les circon- 
stances le permettront, une Com- 
mission internationale d'enquete 
chargee de faciliter la solution de 
ces litiges en eclaircissant, par un 
examen impartial et conscien- 
cieux, les questions de fait. 

Article 10. . 

Les Commissions Internatio- 
nales d'enquete sont constitutes 
par convention speciale entre les 
Parties en litige. 



SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. 



139 



The Inquiry Convention defines 
the facts to be examined; it deter- 
mines the mode and time in which 
the Commission is to be formed 
and the extent of the powers of the 
Commissioners. 

It also determines, if there is 
need, where the Commission is to 
sit, and whether it may remove to 
another place, the language the 
Commission shall use and the lan- 
guages the use of which shall be 
authorized before it, as well as the 
date on which each party must de- 
posit its statement of facts, and, 
generally speaking, all the condi- 
tions upon which the parties have 
agreed . 

If the parties consider it nec- 
essary to appoint Assessors, the 
Convention of Inquiry shall deter- 
mine the mode of their selection 
and the extent of their powers. 

Article 11. 

If the Inquiry Convention has 
not determined where the Com- 
mission is to sit, it will sit at The 
Hague. 

The place of meeting, once fixed, 
cannot be altered by the Commis- 
sion except with the assent of the 
parties. 

If the Inquiry Convention has 
not determined what languages are 
to be employed, the question shall 
be decided by the Commission. 

Article 12. 

Unless an undertaking is made 
to the contrary, Commissions of 
Inquiry shall be formed in the 
manner determined by Articles 45 
and 57 of the present Convention. 

Article 13. 

Should one of the Commissioners 
or one of the Assessors, should there 
be any, either die, or resign, or be 



La convention d'enquete pre- 
cise les faits a examiner; elle de- 
termine le mode et le delai de for- 
mation de la Commission et l'eten- 
due des pouvoirs des Commis- 
saires. 

Elle determine egalement, s'il 
y a lieu, le siege de la Commission 
et la faculte de se deplacer, la 
langue dont la Commission fera 
usage et celles dont l'emploi sera 
autorise devant elle, ainsi que la 
date a laquelle chaque Partie 
devra deposer son expose des faits, 
et generalement toutes les condi- 
tions dont les Parties sont con- 
venues. 

Si les Parties jugent necessaire 
de nommer des assesseurs, la con- 
vention d'enquete determine le 
mode de leur designation et l'eten- 
due de leurs pouvoirs. 

Article 11. 

Si la convention d'enquete n'a. 
pas designe le siege de la Commis- 
sion, celle-ci siegera a La Haye. 

Le siege une fois fixe ne peut 
etre change par la Commission 
qu'avec l'assentiment des Parties. 

Si la convention d'enquete n'a 
pas determine les iangues a em- 
ployer, il en est decide par la. 
Commission. 

Article 12. t 

Sauf stipulation contraire, les 
Commissions d'enquete sont 
formees de la maniere determinee 
par les articles 45 et 57 de la pre- 
sente Convention. 

Article 13. 

En cas de deces, de demission ou 
d'empechement, pour quelque 
cause que ce soit, de l'un des Com* 



140 



APPENDIX. 



unable for any reason whatever to 
discharge his functions, the same 
procedure is followed for filling the 
vacancy as was followed for ap- 
pointing him. 

Article 14. 

The parties are entitled to ap- 
point special agents to attend the 
Commission of Inquiry, whose 
duty it is to represent them and to 
act as intermediaries between 
them and the Commission. 

They are further authorized to 
engage counsel or advocates, ap- 
pointed by themselves, to state 
their case and uphold their inter- 
ests before the Commission. 

Article 15. 

The International Bureau of the 
Permanent Court of Arbitration 
acts as registry for the Commissions 
which sit at The Hague, and shall 
place its offices and staff at the 
disposal of the Contracting Powers 
for the use of the Commission of 
Inquiry. 

Article 16. 

If the Commission meets else- 
where than at The Hague, it ap- 
points a Secretary-General, whose 
office serves as registry. 

It is the function of the registry, 
under the control of the President, 
to make the necessary arrange- 
ments for the sittings of the Com- 
mission, the preparation of the Min- 
utes, and, while the inquiry lasts, 
for the charge of the archives, 
which shall subsequently be trans- 
ferred to the International Bureau 
at The Hague. 

Article 17. 

In order to facilitate the consti- 
tution and working of Commissions 
of Inquiry, the Contracting Powers 



missaires, ou eventuellement de 
Fun des assesseurs, il est pourvu a 
son remplacement selon le mode 
fixe pour sa nomination. 

Article 14. 

Les Parties ont le droit de nom- 
mer aupres de la Commission 
d'enquete des agents speciaux 
avec la mission de Les representer 
et deservir d'intermediaires entre 
Elles et la Commission. 

Elles sont, en outre, autorisees a 
charger des conseils ou avocats 
nommes par elles, d'exposer et de 
soutenir leurs interets devant la 
Commission. 

Article 15. 

Le Bureau international de la 
Cour permanente d'arbitrage sert 
de greffe aux Commissions qui 
siegent a La Haye, et mettra ses 
locaux et son organisation a la dis- 
position des Puissances contrac- 
tantes pour le fonctionnement de 
la Commission d'enquete. 

Article 16. 

Si la Commission siege ailleurs 
qu'a La Haye, elle nomme un 
Secretaire-General dont le bureau 
lui sert de greffe. 

Le -greffe est charge, sous l'au- 
torite du President, de 1' organisa- 
tion materielle des seances de la 
Commission, de la redaction des 
proces-verbaux et, pendant le 
temps de l'enquete, de la garde des 
archives qui seront ensuite versees 
au Bureau international de La 
Have. 

Article 17. 

En vue de faciliter 1' institution 
et le fonctionnement des Commis- 
sions d'enquete, les Puissances 



SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. 141 



recommend the following rules, 
which shall be applicable to the 
inquiry procedure in so far as the 
parties do not adopt other rules. 

Article 18. 

The Commission shall settle the 
details of the procedure not covered 
by the special Inquiry Convention 
or the present Convention, and 
shall arrange all the formalities 
required for dealing with the evi- 
dence. 

Article 19. 

On the inquiry both sides must 
be heard. 

At the dates fixed, each party 
communicates to the Commission 
and to the other party the state- 
ments of facts, if any, and, in all 
cases, the instruments, papers, and 
documents which it considers use- 
ful for ascertaining the truth, as 
well as the list of witnesses and 
experts whose evidence it wishes 
to be heard. 

Article 20. 

The Commission is entitled, 
with the assent of the Powers, to 
move temporarily to any place 
where it considers it may be useful 
to have recourse to this means of 
inquiry or to send one or more of 
its members. Permission must be 
obtained from the State on whose 
territory it is proposed to hold the 
inquiry. 

Article 21. 

Every investigation, and every 
examination of a locality, must be 
made in the presence of the agents 
and counsel of the parties or* after 
they have been duly summoned, appeles. 



contractantes recommandent les 
regies suivantes qui seront appli- 
cables a la procedure d'enquete en 
tant que les Parties n'adopteront 
pas d'autres regies. 

Article 18. 

La Commission reglera les de- 
tails de la procedure non prevus 
dans la convention speciale d'en- 
quete ou dans la presente Conven- 
tion, et procedera a toutes les for- 
malites que comporte l'administra- 
tion des preuves. 

Article 19. 

L'enquete a lieu contradictoire- 
ment. 

Aux dates prevues, chaque Par- 
tie communique a la Commission 
et a F autre Partie les exposes des 
faits, s'il y a lieu, et, dans tous les 
cas, les actes, pieces et documents 
qu'Elle juge utiles a la decouverte 
de la verite, ainsi que la liste des 
temoins et des experts qu'elle de- 
sire faire entendre. 



Article 20. 

La Commission a la faculte, avec 
l'assentiment des Parties, de se 
transporter momentanement sur 
les lieux oil elle juge utile de 
recourir a ce moyen d' information, 
ou d'y deleguer un ou plusieurs de 
ses membres. L'autorisation de 
l'Etat sur le territoire duquel il 
doit etre procede a cette informa- 
tion devra etre obtenue. 

Article 21. 

Toutes constatations materielles, 
et toutes visites des lieux doivent 
etre faites en presence des agents et 
conseils des Parties ou eux dument 



142 



APPENDIX. 



Article 22. 

The Commission is entitled to 
ask from either party for such ex- 
planations and information as it 
■considers necessary. 

Article 23. 

The parties undertake to supply 
the Commission of Inquiry, as fully 
as they may think possible, with 
all means and facilities necessary 
to enable it to. become completely 
acquainted with, and to accurately 
understand, the facts in question. 

They undertake to make use of 
the means at their disposal, under 
their municipal law, to insure the 
appearance of the witnesses or ex- 
perts who are in their territory and 
have been summoned before the 
Commission. 

If the witnesses or experts are 
unable to appear before the Com- 
mission, the parties will arrange 
for their evidence to be taken be- 
fore the qualified officials of their 
own country. 

Article 24. 

For all notices to be served by 
the Commission in the territory of 
a third Contracting Power, the 
Commission shall apply direct to 
the Government of the said Power. 
The same rule applies in the case 
of steps being taken on the spot to 
procure evidence. 

The requests for this purpose are 
to be executed so far as the means 
at the disposal of the Power applied 
to under its municipal law allow. 
They cannot be rejected unless the 
Power in question considers they 
are calculated to impair its sover- 
eign rights or its safety. 

The Commission will equally be 
always entitled to act through the 
JPower on whose territory it sits. 



Article 22. 

La Commission a le droit de sol- 
liciter de l'une ou 1' autre Partie 
telles explications ou informations 
qu'elle juge utiles. 

Article 23. 

Les Parties s'engagent a fournir 
a la Commission d'enquete, dans la 
plus large mesure qu'Elles jugeront 
possible, tous les moyens et toutes 
les facilites necessaires pour la con- 
naissance complete et l'apprecia- 
tion exacte des faits en question. 

Elles s'engagent a user des mo- 
yens dont Elles disposent d'apres 
leur legislation interieure, pour 
assurer la comparution des temoins 
ou des experts se trouvant sur leur 
territoire et cites devant la Com- 
mission. 

Si ceux-ci ne peuvent comparai- 
tre devant la Commission, Elles 
feront proceder a leur audition 
devant leur? antorites competentes. 



Article 24. 

Pour toutes les notifications que 
la Commission aurait a faire sur le 
territoire d'une tierce Puissance 
contractante, la Commission s'a- 
dressera directement au Gouver- 
nement de cette Puissance. II 
en sera de meme s'il s'agit de faire 
proceder sur place a l'etablisse- 
ment de tous moyens de preuve. 

Les requites adressees a cet effet 
seront executees suivant les mo- 
yens dont la Puissance requise dis- 
pose d'apres sa legislation inte- 
rieure. Elles ne peuvent etre re- 
fusees que si cette Puissance les 
juge de nature a porter atteinte a 
Sa souverainete ou a Sa securite. 

La Commission aura aussi tou- 
jours la fa.culte de recourir a l'in- 
termediaire de la Puissance sur le 
territoire de laquelle elle a son 
siege. 



SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. 



143 



Article 25. 

The witnesses and experts are 
summoned on the request of the 
parties or by the Commission of its 
own motion, and, in every case, 
through the Government of the 
State in whose territory they are. 

The witnesses are heard in suc- 
cession and separately', in the pres- 
ence of the agents and counsel, and 
in the order fixed by the Commis- 
sion. 

Article 26. 

The examination of witnesses is 
conducted by the President. 

The members of the Commission 
may however put to each witness 
questions which they consider 
likely to throw light on and com- 
plete his evidence, or get informa- 
tion on any point concerning the 
witness within the limits of what is 
necessary in order to get at the 
truth. 

The agents and counsel of the 
parties may not interrupt the wit- 
ness when he is making his state- 
ment, nor put any direct question 
to him, but they may ask the Presi- 
dent to put such additional ques- 
tions to the witness as they think 
expedient. 

Article 27. 

The witness must give his evi- 
dence without being allowed to 
read any written draft. He may, 
however, be permitted by the 
President to consult notes or docu- 
ments if the nature of the facts re- 
ferred to necessitates their employ- 
ment. 

Article 28. 

A minute of the evidence of the 
witness is drawn up forthwith and 
read to the witness. The latter 



Article 25. 

Les temoins et les experts sont 
appeles a la requete des Parties ou 
d'office par la Commission, et, 
dans tous les cas, par l'interme- 
diaire du Gouvernement de l'Etat 
sur le territoire duquel ils se trou- 
vent. 

Les temoins sont entendus, suc- 
cessivement et separement, en 
presence des agents et des conseils 
et dans un ordre a fixer par la 
Commission. 

Article 26. 

L'interrogatoire des temoins est 
conduit par le President. 

Les membres de la Commission 
peuvent neanmoins poser a chaque 
temoin les questions qu'ils croient 
convenables pour eclaircir ou 
completer sa deposition, ou pour 
se renseigner sur tout ce qui coh- 
cerne le temoin dans les limites 
necessaires a la manifestation de 
la verite. 

Les agents et les conseils des 
Parties ne peuvent interrompre le 
temoin dans sa deposition, ni lui 
faire aucune interpellation directe, 
mais peuvent demander au Presi- 
dent de poser au temoin telles 
questions complementaires qu'ils 
jugent utiles. 

Article 27. 

Le temqin doit deposer sans qu'il 
lui soit permis de lire aucun projet 
ecrit. Toutefois, il peut etre au- 
torise par le President a s'aider de 
notes ou documents si la nature 
des faits rapportes en necessite 
l'emploi. 

Article 28. 

Proces-verbal de la deposition 
du temoin est dresse seance te- 
nante et lecture en est donnee au 



144 



APPENDIX. 



may make such alterations and 
additions as he thinks necessary, 
which will be recorded at the end 
of his statement. 

When the whole of his statement 
has been read to the witness, he is 
asked to sign it. 

Article 29. 

The agents are authorized, in the 
course of or at the close of the 
inquiry, to present in writing to 
the Commission and to the other 
party such statements, requisi- 
tions, or summaries of the facts as 
they consider useful for ascertain- 
ing the truth. 

Article 30. 

The Commission considers its de- 
cisions in private and the proceed- 
ings ai»e secret. 

All questions are decided by a 
majority of the members of the 
Commission. 

If a member declines to vote, the 
fact must be recorded in the 
minutes. 

Article 31. 

The sittings of the Commission 
are not public, nor the minutes and' 
documents connected with the 
inquiry published except in virtue 
of a decision of the Commission 
taken with the consent of the 
parties. 

Article 32. 

After the parties have presented 
all the explanations and evidence, 
and the witnesses have all been 
heard, the President declares the 
inquiry terminated, and the Com- 
mission adjourns to deliberate and 
to draw up its Report. 



temoin. Le temoin peut y faire 
tels changements et additions que 
bon lui semble et qui seront con- 
signed a la suite de sa deposition. 
Lecture faite au temoin de 1' en- 
semble de sa deposition, le temoin 
est requis de signer. 

Article 29. 

Les agents sont autorises, au 
cours ou a la fin de l'enquete, a 
presenter par ecrit a la Commis- 
sion et a l'aut're Partie tels dires, 
requisitions ou resumes de fait, 
qu'ils jugent utiles a la decouverte 
de la verite. 



Article 30. 

Les deliberations de la Commis- 
sion ont lieu a huis clos et restent 
secretes. , 

Toute decision est prise a la 
majorite des membres de la Com- 
mission. 

Le refus d'un membre de pren- 
dre part au vote doit etre constate 
dans le proces- verbal. 

Article 31. 

Les seances de la Commission ne 
sont publiques et les proces-ver- 
baux et documents de l'enquete 
ne sont rendus publics qu'en vertu 
d'une decision de la Commission, 
prise avec l'assentiment des Par- 
ties. 

Article 32. 

Les Parties ayant presente tous 
les eclaircissements et preuves, 
tous les temoins ayant ete enten- 
dus, le President prononce la 
cloture de l'enquete et la Com- 
mission s'ajourne pour deliberer 
et rediger son rapport. 



SETTLEMENT OF INTEKNATIONAL DISPUTES. 145 



Article 33. 

The Report is signed by all the 
members of the Commission. 

If one of the members refuses to 
sign, the fact is mentioned; but the 
validity of the Report is not 
affected. 

Article 34. 

The Report of the Commission 
is read at a public sitting, the 
agents and counsel of the parties 
being present or duly summoned. 

A copy of the Report is given to 
each party. 

Article 35. 

The Report of the Commission 
is - limited to a statement of facts, 
and has in no way the character of 
an Award. It leaves to the parties 
entire freedom as to the effect to be 
given to the statement. 

Article 36. 

Each party pays its own ex- 
penses and an equal share of the 
expenses incurred by the Com- 
mission. 

Part IV. — International Arbitra- 
tion. 

Chapter I. — The System of Ar- 
bitration. 

Article 37. 

International arbitration has for 
its object the settlement of dis- 
putes between States by Judges of 
their own choice and on the basis 
of respect for law. 

Recourse to arbitration implies 
an engagement to submit in good 
faith to the Award. 

55983—09 -10 



Article 33. 

Le rapport est signe par tous lee 
membres de la Commission. 

Si un des membres refuse de 
signer, mention en est faite; le 
rapport reste neanmoins valable. 

Article 34. 

Le rapport de la Commission est 
lu en seance publique, les agents 
et conseils des Parties presents ou 
dument appeles. 

Un exemplaire du rapport est 
remis a chaque Partie. 

Article 35. 

Le rapport de la Commission, 
limite a la constatation des faits, 
n'a nullement le caractere d'une 
sentence arbitrale. II laisse aux 
Parties une entiere liberte pour la 
suite a donner a cette constatation. 

Article 36. 

Chaque Partie supporte ses pro- 
pres frais et une part egale des 
frais de la Commission. 



Titre IV. — De V arbitrage inter- 
national. 

Chapitre I. — De la Justice arbi- 
trale. 

Article 37. 

L'arbitrage international a pour 
objet le reglement de litiges entre 
les Etats par des juges de leur 
choix et sur la base du respect du 
droit. 

Le recours a l'arbitrage implique 
1' engagement de se soumettre de 
bonne foi a la sentence. 



146 



APPENDIX. 



Article 38. 

In questions of a legal nature, 
and especially in the interpreta- 
tion or application of International 
Conventions, arbitration is recog- 
nized by the Contracting Powers 
as the most effective, and, at the 
same time, the most equitable 
means of settling disputes which 
diplomacy has failed to settle. 



Consequently, it would be de- 
sirable that, in disputes about the 
above-mentioned questions, the 
Contracting Powers should, if the 
case arose, have recourse to arbi- 
tration, in so far as circumstances 
permit. 

Article 39. 

The Arbitration Convention is 
concluded for questions already 
existing or for questions which 
may arise eventually. 

It may embrace any dispute or 
only disputes of a certain category. 

Article 40. 

Independently of general or pri- 
vate Treaties expressly stipulating 
recourse to arbitration as obliga- 
tory on the Contracting Powers, 
the said Powers reserve to them- 
selves the right of concluding new 
Agreements, general or particular, 
with a view to extending compul- 
sory arbitration to all cases which 
they may consider it possible to 
submit to it. 

Chapter II. — The Permanent 
Court of Arbitration. 

Article 41. 

With the object of facilitating an 
immediate recourse to arbitration 
for international differences, 



Article 38. 

Dans les questions d'ordre juri- 
dique, et en premier lieu, dans les 
questions d' interpretation ou d'ap- 
plication des Conventions Inter- 
nationales, l'arbitrage est reconnu 
par les Puissances contractantes 
comme le moyen le plus efficace 
et en meme temps le plus equi- 
table de regler les litiges qui n'ont 
pas ete resolus par les voies diplo- 
matiques. 

En consequence, il serait desi- 
rable que, dans les litiges sur les 
questions susmentionnees, les Puis- 
sances contractantes eussent, le cas 
echeant, recours a l'arbitrage, en 
tant que les circonstances le per- 
mettraient. 

Article 39. 

La convention d'arbitrage est 
conclue pour des contestations 
deja nees ou pour des contesta- 
tions eventuelles. 

Elle peut concerner tout litige 
ou seulement les litiges d'une Cate- 
gorie determinee. 

Article 40. 

Independamment des Traites 
generaux ou particuliers qui stipu- 
lent actuellement 1' obligation du 
recours a l'arbitrage pour les Puis- 
sances contractantes, ces Puis- 
sances se reservent de conclure des 
accords nouveaux, generaux ou 
particuliers, en vue d'etendre l'ar- 
bitrage obligatoire a tous les cas 
qu'Elles jugeront possible de lui 
soumettre.- 

Chapitre II. — De la Cour perma- 
nente d'arbitrage. 

Article 41. 

Dans le but de faciliter le recours 
immediat a l'arbitrage pour les 
differends internationaux qui 



SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. 147 



which it has not been possible to 
settle by diplomacy, the Con- 
tracting Powers undertake to 
maintain the Permanent Court of 
Arbitration, as established by the 
First Peace Conference, accessible 
at all times, and operating, unless 
otherwise stipulated by the par- 
ties, in accordance with the rules 
of procedure inserted in the pres- 
ent Convention. 

Article 42. 

The Permanent Court is compe- 
tent for all arbitration cases, un- 
less the parties agree to institute a 
special Tribunal. 

Article 43. 

The Permanent Court sits at The 
Hague. 

An International Bureau serves 
as registry for the Court. It is the 
channel for communications rela- 
tive to the meetings of the Court; 
it has charge of the archives and 
conducts all the administrative 
business. 

The Contracting Powers under- 
take to communicate to the Bureau, 
as soon as possible, a certified copy 
of the conditions of arbitration 
arrived at between them and of 
any Award concerning them de- 
livered by a special Tribunal. 

They likewise undertake to 
communicate to the Bureau the 
laws, regulations, and documents 
eventually showing the execution 
of the Awards given by the Court. 

Article 44. 

Each Contracting Power selects 
four persons at the most, of known 
competency in questions of inter- 
national law, of the highest moral 
reputation, and disposed to accept 
the duties of Arbitrator. 



n'ont pu etre regies par la voie di- 
plomatique, les Puissances con- 
tractantes s'engagent a maintenir, 
telle qu'elle a ete etablie par la 
Premiere Conference de la Paix, 
la Cour permanente d' arbitrage, 
accessible en tout temps et fonc- 
tionnant, sauf stipulation contraire 
des Parties, conformement aux 
regies de procedure inserees dans 
la presente Convention. 

Article 42. 

La Cour permanente est compe- 
tente pour tous les cas d' arbitrage, 
a moins qu'il n'y ait entente entre 
les Parties pour l'etablissement 
d'une juridiction speciale. 

Article 43. 

La Cour permanente a son siege 
a La Haye. 

Un Bureau International sert de 
greffe a la Cour; il est l'interme- 
diaire des communications rela- 
tives aux reunions de celle-ci; il a 
la garde des archives et la gestion 
de toutes les affaires administra- 
tives. 

Les Puissances signataires s'en- 
gagent a communiquer au Bureau, 
aussitot que possible, une copie 
certifiee conforme de toute stipu- 
lation d' arbitrage inter venue entre 
Elles et de toute sentence arbitrate 
les concernant et rendue par des 
juridictions speciales. 

Elles s'engagent a communiqner 
de meme au Bureau les lois, regle- 
ments et documents constatant 
eventuellement l'execution des 
sentences rendues par la Cour. 

Article 44. 

Chaque Puissance contractante 
designe quatre personnes au plus, 
d'une competence reconnue dans 
les questions de droit interna- 
tional, jouissant de la plus haute 
consideration morale et disposees 
a accepter les fonctions d'arbitre. 



148 



APPENDIX. 



The 'persons thus selected are 
inscribed, as members of the Court, 
in a list which shall be notified to 
all the Contracting Powers by the 
Bureau. 

Any alteration in the list of Ar- 
bitrators is brought by the Bureau 
to the knowledge of the Contract- 
ing Powers. 

Two or more Powers may agree 
on the selection in common of one 
or more members. 

The same person can be selected 
by different Powers. 

The members of the Court are 
appointed for a term of six years. 
These appointments are renewable. 

Should a member of the Court 
die or resign, the same procedure 
is followed for filling the vacancy 
as was followed for appointing 
him. In this case the appoint- 
ment is made for a fresh period of 
six years. 

Article 45. 

When the Contracting Powers 
wish to have recourse to the Per- 
manent Court for the settlement 
of a difference which has arisen 
between them, the Arbitrators 
called upon to form the Tribunal 
with jurisdiction to decide this 
difference must be chosen from the 
general list of members of the Court. 

Failing the direct agreement of 
the parties on the composition of 
the Arbitration Tribunal, the fol- 
lowing course shall be pursued: 

Each party appoints two Arbi- 
trators, of whom one only can be 
its national or chosen from among 
the persons selected by it as mem- 
bers of the Permanent Court. 
These Arbitrators together choose 
an Umpire. 



Les personnes ainsi designees 
sont inscrites, au titre de Membres 
de la Cour, sur une liste qui sera 
notifiee a toutes les Puissances 
contractantes par les soins du 
Bureau. 

Toute modification a la liste des 
arbitres est portee, par les soins du 
Bureau, a la connaissance des 
Puissances contractantes. 

Deux ou plusieurs Puissances 
peuvent s' entendre pour la desi- 
gnation en commun d'un ou de 
plusieurs Membres. 

La meme personne peut etre 
designee par des Puissances diffe- 
rentes. 

Les Membres de la Cour sont 
nommes pour un terme de six ans. 
Leur mandat peut etre renouvele. 

En cas de deces ou de retraite 
d'un Membre de la Cour, il est 
pourvu a son remplacement selon 
le mode fixe pour sa nomination, et 
pour une nouvelle periode de six 
ans. 

Article 45. 

Lorsque les Puissances contrac- 
tantes veulent s'adresser a la Cour 
permanente pour le reglement d'un 
differend survenu entre Elles, le 
choix des arbitres appeles a former 
le Tribunal competent pour statuer 
sur ce differend, doit etre fait dans 
la liste generale des Membres de la 
Cour. 

A defaut de constitution du Tri- 
bunal arbitral par 1 'accord des 
Parties, il est procede de la ma- 
niere suivante: 

Chaque Partie nomme deux 
arbitres, dont un seulement peut 
etre son' national ou choisi parmi 
ceux qui ont ete designes par Elle 
comme Membres de la Cour per- 
manente. Ces arbitres choisissent 
ensemble un surarbitre. 



SETTLEMENT OF INTEBNATIONAL DISPUTES. 



149 



If the votes are equally divided, 
the choice of the Umpire is in- 
trusted to a third Power, selected 
by the parties by common accord. 

If an agreement is not arrived 
at on this subject each party se- 
lects a different Power, and the 
choice of the Umpire is made in 
concert by the Powers thus se- 
lected. 

If, within two months' time, 
these two Powers cannot come to 
an agreement, each of them pre- 
sents two candidates taken from 
the list of members of the Perma- 
nent Court, exclusive of the mem- 
bers selected by the parties and 
not being nationals of either of 
them. Drawing lots determines 
Which of the candidates thus pre- 
sented shall be Umpire. 

Article 46. 

The Tribunal being thus com- 
posed, the parties notify to the 
Bureau their determination to 
have recourse to the Court, the 
text of their "Compromis, "a and 
the names of the Arbitrators. 

The Bureau communicates with- 
out delay to each Arbitrator the 
"Compromis," and the names of 
the other members of the Tribunal. 

The Tribunal assembles at the 
date fixed by the parties. The 
Bureau makes the necessary ar- 
rangements for the meeting. 

The members of the Tribunal, 
in the exercise of their duties and 
out of their own country, enjoy 
diplomatic privileges and immu- 
nities. 

Article 47. 



En cas de partage des voix, le 
choix du surarbitre est confie a une 
Puissance tierce, designee de 
commun accord par les Parties. 

Si l'accord ne s'etablit pas a ce 
sujet, chaque Partie designe une 
Puissance differente et le choix du 
surarbitre est fait de concert par les 
Puissances ainsi designees. 

Si, dans un delai de deux mois, 
ces deux Puissances n'ont pu tom- 
ber d'accord, chacune d'Elles pre- 
sente deux candidats pris sur la 
liste des Membres de la Cour per- 
manente, en dehors des Membres 
designes par les Parties et n'etant 
les nationaux d'aucune d'Elles. 
Le sort determine lequel des can- 
didats ainsi presentes sera le sur- 
arbitre. 

Article 46. 

Des que le Tribunal est compose, 
les Parties notifient au Bureau leur 
decision de s'adresser a la Cour, le 
texte de leur compromis, et les 
noms des arbitres. 

Le Bureau communique sans 
delai a chaque arbitre le com- 
promis et les noms des autres 
Membres du Tribunal. 

Le Tribunal se reunit a la date 
fixee par les Parties. Le Bureau 
pourvoit a son installation. 

Les Membres du Tribunal, dans 
l'exercice de leur fonctions et en 
dehors de leur pays, jouissent des 
privileges et immunites diplo- 
matiques. 

Article 47. 



The Bureau is authorized to Le Bureau est autorise a mettre 
place its offices and staff at the dis- ses locaux et son organisation a la 
posa] of the Contracting Powers disposition des Puissances con- 



a The preliminary Agreement in an international arbitration defining the point at 
issue and arranging the procedure to be followed. 



150 



APPENDIX. 



for the use of any special Board of 
Arbitration. 

The jurisdiction of the Perma- 
nent Court may, within the condi- 
tions laid down in the regulations, 
be extended to disputes between 
non-Contracting Powers or be- 
tween Contracting Powers and 
non-"Contracting Powers, if the 
parties are agreed on recourse to 
this Tribunal. 

Article 48. 

The Contracting Powers con- 
sider it their duty, if a serious dis- 
pute threatens to break out be- 
tween two or more of them, to re- 
mind these latter that the Perma- 
nent Court is open to them. 

Consequently, they declare that 
the fact of reminding the parties at 
variance of the provisions of the 
present Convention, and the ad- 
vice given to them, in the highest 
interests of peace, to have recourse 
to the Permanent Court, can only 
be regarded as friendly actions. 

In case of dispute between two 
Powers, one of them can always 
address to the International Bu- 
reau a. note containing a declara- 
tion that it would be ready to sub- 
mit the dispute to arbitration. 

The Bureau must at once inform 
the other Power of the declaration. 

Article 49. 

The Permanent Administrative 
Council, composed of the Diplo- 
matic Representatives of the Con- 
tracting Powers accredited to The 
Hague and of the Netherlands Min- 



tractantes pour le fonctionne- 
ment de toute juridiction speciale 
d'arbitrage. 

La juridiction de la Cour per- 
manente peut etre etendue, daDS 
les conditions prescrites par les 
reglements, aux litiges existant 
entre des Puissances non contrac- 
tantes ou entre des Puissances con- 
tractantes et des Puissances non 
contractantes, si les Parties sont 
con venues de recourir a cette juri- 
diction. 

Article 48. 

Les Puissances contractantes 
considerent comme un devoir, 
dans le cas ou un conflit aigu 
menacerait d'eclater entre deux 
ou plusieurs d'entre Elles, de rap- 
peler a celles-ci que la Cour per- 
manente leur est ouverte. 

En consequence, Elles de- 
clarent que le fait de rappeler aux 
Parties en conflit les dispositions 
de la presente Convention, et le 
conseil donne, dans l'interet su- 
perieur de la paix, de s'adresser 
a la Cour permanente, ne peuvent 
§tre considered que comme actes 
de bons offices. 

En cas de conflit entre deux 
Puissances, l'une d'Elles pourra 
toujours adresser au Bureau Inter- 
national une note contenant sa 
declaration qu'Elle serait disposee 
a soumettre le differend a un ar- 
bitrage. 

Le Bureau devra porter aussit6t 
la declaration a la connaissance de 
l'autre Puissance. 

, Article 49. 

Le Conseil administratif per- 
manent, compose des Represen- 
tants diplomatiques des Puis- 
sances contractantes accredited a 
La Haye et du Ministre des Af- 



SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. 



151 



ister for Foreign Affairs, who will 
act as President, is charged with 
the direction and control of the In- 
ternational Bureau. 

The Council settles its rules of 
procedure and all other necessary 
regulations. 

It decides all questions of ad- 
ministration which may arise with 
regard to the operations of the 
Court. 

It has entire control over the 
appointment, suspension, or dis- 
missal of the officials and employes 
of the Bureau 

It fixes the payments and sala- 
ries, and controls the general ex- 
penditure. 

At meetings duly summoned the 
presence of nine members is suffi- 
cient to render valid the discus- 
sions of the Council. The decis- 
ions are taken by a majority of 
votes. 

The Council communicates to 
the Contracting Powers without 
delay the regulations adopted by 
it. It furnishes them with an an- 
nual Report on the labors of the 
Court, the working of the adminis- 
tration, and the expenditure. The 
Report likewise contains a resume 
of what is important in the docu- 
ments communicated to the Bu- 
reau by the Powers in virtue of 
Article 43, paragraphs 3 and 4. 

Article 50. 

The expenses of the Bureau shall 
be borne by the Contracting Pow- 
ers in the proportion fixed for the 
International Bureau of the Uni- 
versal Postal Union. 

The expenses to be charged to 
the adhering Powers shall be reck- 
oned from the date on which their 
adhesion comes into force. 



faires Etrangeres des Pays-Bas, 
qui remplit les fonctions de Presi- 
dent, a la direction et le controle 
du Bureau International. 

Le Conseil arrete son reglement 
d'ordre ainsi que tous autres regle- 
ments necessaires. 

II decide toutes les questions ad- 
ministratives qui pourraient surgir 
touchant le fonctionnement de la 
Cour. 

II a tout pouvoir quant a la nomi- 
nation, la suspension ou la revoca- 
tion des fonctionnaires et employes 
du Bureau. 

II fixe les traitements et salaires, 
et controle la depense generale. 

La presence de neuf membres 
dans les reunions dument convo- 
quees suffit pour permettre au Con- 
seil de deliberer valablement. 
Les decisions sont prises a la ma- 
jorite des voix. 

Le Conseil communique sans 
delai aux Puissances contractantes 
les reglements adoptes par lui. 11 
Leur presente chaque annee un 
rapport sur les travaux de la Cour, 
sur le fonctionnement des services 
administratifs et sur les depenses. 
Le rapport contient egalement un 
resume du contenu essentiel des 
documents communiques au Bu- 
reau par les Puissances en vertu de 
1' article 43 alineas 3 et 4. 

Article 50. 

Les frais du Bureau seront sup- 
ported par les Puissances contrac- 
tantes dans la proportion etablie 
pour le Bureau international de 
1' Union postale universelle. 

Les frais a la charge des Puis- 
sances adherentes seront comptes a 
partir du jour oil leur adhesion 
produit ses effets. 



152 



APPENDIX. 



Chapter III. — Arbitration Pro- Chapitre III. — De la Procedure 
cedure. arbitrale. 



Article 51. 

p With a view to encouraging the 
development of arbitration, the 
Contracting Powers have agreed 
on the following rules, which are 
applicable to arbitration proced- 
ure, unless other rules have been 
agreed on by the parties. 

Article 52. 

The Powers which have recourse 
to arbitration sign a ' ' Compromis, ' ' 
in which the subject of the dispute 
is clearly defined, the time allowed 
for appointing Arbitrators, the 
form, order, and time in which the 
communication referred to in Ar- 
ticle 63 must be made, and the 
amount of the sum which each 
party must deposit in advance to 
defray the expenses. 

The "Compromis" likewise de- 
fines, if there is occasion, the man- 
ner of appointing Arbitrators, any 
special powers which may event- 
ually belong to the Tribunal, 
where it shall meet, the language 
it shall use, and the languages the 
employment of which shall be au- 
thorized before it, and, generally 
speaking, all the conditions on 
which the parties are agreed. 

Article 53. a 

The Permanent Court is compe- 
tent to settle the "Compromis," 
if the parties are agreed to have re- 
course to it for the purpose. 

It is similarly competent, even 
if the request is only made by one 
of the parties, when all attempts 
to reach an understanding through 
the diplomatic channel have 
failed, in the case of: — 



Article 51. 

En vue de favoriser le developpe- 
ment de l'arbitrage, les Puissances 
contractantes ont arrete les regies 
suivantes qui sont applicables a la 
procedure arbitrale, en tant que 
les Parties ne sont pas convenues 
d'autres regies. 

Article 52. 

Les Puissances qui recourent a 
l'arbitrage signent un compromis 
dans lequel sont determines l'objet 
du litige, le delai de nomination 
des arbitres, la forme, l'ordre et les 
delais dans lesquels la communica- 
tion visee par Particle 63 devra 
§tre faite, et le montant de la 
somme que chaque Partie aura a 
deposer a titre d'avance pour les 
frais. 

Le compromis determine egale- 
ment, s'il y a lieu, le mode de 
nomination des arbitres, tous pou- 
voirs speciaux eventuels du Tri- 
bunal, son siege, la langue dont il 
fera usage et celles dont l'emploi 
sera autorise devant lui, et gene- 
ralement toutes les conditions dont 
les Parties sont convenues. 



Article 53. 

La Cour permanente est com- 
petente pour l'etablissement du 
compromis, si les Parties sont d'ac- 
cord pour s'en remettre a elle. 

Elle est egalement competente, 
meme si la demande est faite 
seulement par l'une des Parties, 
apres qu'un accord par la voie di- 
plomatique a ete vainement es- 
saye, quand il s'agit: 



a Affected by Resolution of Ratification, last paragraph, page 165, which see. 



SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. 



153 



1. A dispute covered by a gen- 
eral Treaty of Arbitration con- 
cluded or renewed after the present 
Convention has come into force, 
and providing for a ' ' Compromis " 
in all disputes and not either ex- 
plicitly or implicitly excluding the 
settlement of the "Compromis" 
from the competence of the Court. 
Recourse cannot, however, be had 
to the Court if the other party de- 
clares that in its opinion the dis- 
pute does not belong to the cate- 
gory of disputes which can be sub- 
mitted to compulsory arbitration, 
unless the Treaty of Arbitration 
confers upon the Arbitration Tri- 
bunal the power of deciding this 
preliminary question. 

2. A dispute arising from con- 
tract debts claimed from one 
Power by another Power as due to 
its nationals, and for the settle- 
ment of which the offer of arbitra- 
tion has been accepted. This 
arrangement is not applicable if 
acceptance is subject to the con- 
dition that the "Compromis" 
should be settled in some other 



way. 



Article 54. 



In the cases contemplated in the 
preceding Article, the "Compro- 
mis" shall be settled by a Commis- 
sion consisting of five members 
selected in the manner arranged 
for in Article 45, paragraphs 3 to 6. 

The fifth member is President of 
the Commission ex officio. 

Article 55. 

The duties of Arbitrator may be 
conferred on one Arbitrator alone 
or on several Arbitrators selected 
by the parties as they please, or 
chosen by them from the members 



1°. d'un differend rentrant dans 
un Traite d'arbitrage general con- 
clu ou renouvele apres la mise en 
vigueur de cette Convention et qui 
prevoit pour chaque differend un 
compromis et n'exclut pour l'eta- 
blissement de ce dernier ni expli- 
citement ni implicitement la com- 
petence de la Cour. Toutefois, le 
recours a la Cour n'a pas lieu si 
l'autre Partie declare qu'a son avis 
le differend n'appartient pas a la 
categorie des differends a soumet- 
tre a. un arbitrage obligatoire, a 
moins que la Traite d'arbitrage ne 
confere au Tribunal arbitral le 
pouvoir de decider cette question 
prealable; 

2°. d'un differend provenant de 
dettes contractuelles reclamees a 
une Puissance par une autre Puis- 
sance comme dues a ses nationaux, 
et pour la solution duquel 1' off re 
d'arbitrage a ete acceptee. Cette 
disposition n'est pas applicable si 
l'acceptation a ete subordonnee a 
la condition que le compromis soit 
etabli selon un autre mode. 

Article 54. 

Dans les cas prevus par l'article 
precedent, le compromis sera etabli 
par une commission composee de 
cinq membres designes de la ma- 
niere prevue a Particle 45, alineas 
3 a 6. 

Le cinquieme membre est de 
droit President de la commission. 

Article 55. 

Les fonctions arbitrales peuvent 
etre conferees a un arbitre unique 
ou a plusieurs arbitres designes par 
les Parties a leur gr6, ou choisis par 
Elles parmi les Membres de la Coup 



154 



APPENDIX. 



of the Permanent Court of Arbitra- 
tion established by the present 
Convention. 

Failing the constitution of the 
Tribunal by direct agreement be- 
tween the parties, the course re- 
ferred to in Article 45, paragraphs 
3 to 6, is followed. 

Article 56. 



permanente d' arbitrage etablie par 
la presente Convention. 

A defaut de constitution du Tri- 
bunal par l'accord des Parties, il 
est procede de la maniere indiqu^e 
a l'article 45, alineas 3 a 6. 

Article 56. 



When a Sovereign or the Chief Lorsqu'un Souverain ou un Chef 



of a State is chosen as Arbitrator, 
the arbitration procedure is settled 
by him. 

Article 57. 

The Umpire is President of the 
Tribunal ex officio. 

When the Tribunal does not in- 
clude an Umpire, it appoints its 
own President. 

Article 58. 

When the "Compromis" is set- 
tled by a Commission, as contem- 
plated in Article 54, and in the 
absence of an agreement to the 
contrary, the Commission itself 
shall form the Arbitration Tri- 
bunal. 

Article 59. 

Should one of the Arbitrators 
either die, retire, or be unable for 
any reason whatever to discharge 
his functions, the same procedure 
is followed for filling the vacancy 
as was followed for appointing him. 

Article 60. 

The Tribunal sits at The Hague, 
unless some other place is selected 
by the parties. 

The Tribunal can only sit in 
the territory of a third Power with 
the latter' s consent. 



d'Etat est choisi pour arbitre, la 
procedure arbitrate est reglee par 
Lui. 

Article 57. 

Le surarbitre est de droit Presi- 
dent du Tribunal. 

Lorsque le Tribunal ne com- 
prend pas de surarbitre, il nomme 
lui-meme son President. 

Article 58. 

En cas d'etablissement du com- 
promis par une commission, telle 
qu'elle est visee a Particle 54, et 
sauf stipulation contraire, la com- 
mission elle meme formera le Tri- 
bunal d' arbitrage. 

Article 59. 

En cas de deces, de demission ou 
d'empechement, pour quelque 
cause que ce soit, de Fun des arbi- 
tres, il est pourvu a son remplace- 
ment selon le mode fixe pour sa 
nomination. 

Article 60. 

A defaut de designation par les 
Parties/ le Tribunal siege a La 
Haye. 

Le Tribunal ne peut sieger sur le 
territoire d'une tierce Puissance 
qu'avec l'assentiment de celle-ci. 



SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. 155 



The place of meeting once fixed 
cannot be altered by the Tribunal, 
except with the consent of the 
parties. 

Article 61. 

If the question as to what lan- 
guages are to be used has not been 
settled by the " Compromis, " it 
shall be decided by the Tribunal. 

Article 62. 

The parties are entitled to ap- 
point special agents to attend the 
Tribunal to act as intermediaries 
between themselves and the Tri- 
bunal. 

They are further authorized to 
retain for the defence of their rights 
and interests before the Tribunal 
counsel or advocates appointed by 
themselves for this purpose. 

The members of the Permanent 
Court may not act as agents, coun- 
sel, or advocates except on behalf 
of the Power which appointed 
them members of the Court. 

Article 63. 

As a general rule, arbitration 
procedure comprises two distinct 
phases: pleadings and oral dis- 
cussions. 

The pleadings consist in the 
communication by the respective 
agents to the members of the Tri- 
bunal and the opposite party of 
cases, counter-cases, and, if neces- 
sary, of replies; the parties annex 
thereto all papers and documents 
called for in the case. This com- 
munication shall be made either 
directly or through the interme- 
diary of the International Bureau, 
in the order and within the time 
fixed by the "Compromis." 



Le siege une fois fixe ne peut 
§tre change par le Tribunal 
qu'avec l'assentiment des Parties. 

Article 61. 

Si le compromis n'a pas deter- 
mine les langues a employer, il en 
est decide par le Tribunal. 



Article 62. 

Les Parties ont le droit de nom- 
mer aupres du Tribunal des agents 
speciaux, avec la mission de servir 
d'intermediaires entre Elles et le 
Tribunal. 

Elles sont en outre autorisees a 
charger de la defense de leurs 
droits et interets devant le Tri- 
bunal, des conseils ou avocats 
nommes par Elles a cet effet. 

Les Membres de la Cour perma- 
nente ne peuvent exercer les fonc- 
tions d 'agents, conseils ou avocats, 
qu'en faveur de la Puissance qui 
les a nommes Membres de la Cour. 

Article 63. 

La procedure arbitrale com- 
prend en regie generale deux 
phases distinctes: l'instruction 
ecrite et les debats. 

L'instruction ecrite consiste 
dans la communication faite par 
les agents respectifs, aux membres 
du Tribunal et a la Partie adverse, 
des memoires, des contre-m£- 
moires et, au besoin, des repliques; 
les Parties y joignent toutes pieces 
et documents invoques dans la 
cause. Cette communication aura 
lieu, directement ou par l'inter- 
mediaire du Bureau international, 
dans l'ordre et dans les delais 
determines par le compromis. 



156 



APPENDIX. 



The time fixed by the "Compro- 
mis" may be extended by mutual 
agreement by the parties, or by 
the Tribunal when the latter con- 
siders it necessary for the purpose 
of reaching a just decision. 

The discussions consist in the 
oral development before the Tri- 
bunal of the arguments of the 
parties. 

Article 64. 

A certified copy of every docu- 
ment produced by one party must 
be communicated to the other 
party. 

Article 65. 

Unless special circumstances 
arise, the Tribunal does not meet 
until the pleadings are closed. 

Article 66. 

The discussions are under the 
control of the President. 

They are only public if it be so 
decided by the Tribunal, with the 
assent of the parties. 

They are recorded in minutes 
drawn up by the Secretaries ap- 
pointed by the President. These 
minutes are signed by the Presi- 
dent and by one of the Secretaries 
and alone have an authentic char- 
acter. 

Article 67. 

After the close of the pleadings, 
the Tribunal is entitled to refuse 
discussion of all new papers or doc- 
uments which one of the parties 
may wish to submit to it without 
the consent of the other party. 

Article 68. 

The Tribunal is free to take into 
consideration new papers or docu- 
ments to which its attention may 



Les delais fixes par le compromis 
pourront etre prolonges de com- 
mun accord par les Parties, ou par 
le Tribunal quand il le juge neces- 
saire pour arriver a une decision 
juste. 

Les debats consistent dans le 
developpement oral des moyens 
des Parties devant le Tribunal. 

Article 64. 

Toute piece produite par l'une 
des Parties doit etre commu- 
niquee, en copie certifiee con- 
forme, a F autre Partie. 

Article 65. 

A moins de circonstances spe- 
ciales, le Tribunal ne se reunit 
qu'apres la cloture de 1' instruc- 
tion. 

Article 66. 

Les debats sont diriges par le 
President. 

lis ne sont publics qu'en vertu 
d'une decision du Tribunal, prise 
avec l'assentiment des Parties. 

lis sont consignes dans des pro- 
ces-verbaux rediges par des secre- 
taires que nomme le President. 
Ces proces-verbaux sont signes par 
le President et par un des secre- 
taires; ils ont seuls caractere au- 
thentique. 

Article 67. 

L' instruction etant close, le Tri- 
bunal a le droit d'ecarter du debat 
tous actes ou documents nouveaux 
qu'une des Parties voudrait lui 
soumettre sans le consentement de 
1' autre. 

Article 68. 

Le Tribunal demeure libre de 
prendre en consideration les actes 
ou documents nouveaux sur les- 



SETTLEMENT OF I NTEK NATIONAL DISPUTES. 



157 



be drawn by the agents or counsel 
of the parties. 

In this case, the Tribunal has 
the right to require the production 
of the?e papers or documents, but 
is obliged to make them known to 
the opposite party. 

Article 69. 

The Tribunal can, besides, re- 
quire from the agents of the parties 
the production of all papers, and 
can demand all necessary explana- 
tions. In case of refusal the Tri- 
bunal takes note of it. 

Article 70. 

The agents and the counsel of 
the parties are authorized to pre- 
sent orally to the Tribunal all the 
arguments they may consider ex- 
pedient in defence of their case. 

Article 71. 

They are entitled to raise objec- 
tions and points. The decisions of 
the Tribunal on these points are 
final and cannot form the subject 
of any subsequent discussion. 

Article 72. 

The members of the Tribunal 
are entitled to put questions to the 
agents and counsel of the parties, 
and to ask them for explanations 
on doubtful points. 

Neither the questions put, nor 
the remarks made by members of 
the Tribunal in the course of the 
discussions, can be regarded as an 
expression of opinion by the Tri- 
bunal in general or by its members 
in particular. 

Article 73. 

The Tribunal is authorized to 
declare its competence in inter- 



quels les agents ou conseils des 
Parties appelleraient sonattention. 
En ce cas, le Tribunal a le droit 
de requerir la production de ces 
actes ou documents, sauf l'obliga- 
tion d'en donner connaissance a la 
Partie adverse. 

Article 69. 

Le Tribunal peut, en outre, 
requerir des agents des Parties la 
production de tous actes et de- 
mander toutes explications neces- 
saires. En cas de refus, le Tri- 
bunal en prend acte. 

Article 70. 

Les agents et les conseils des 
Parties sont autorises a presenter 
oralement au Tribunal tous les 
moyens qu'ils jugent utiles a la 
defense de leur cause. 

Article 71. 

lis ont le droit de soulever des 
exceptions et des incidents. Les 
decisions du Tribunal sur ces 
points sont definitives et ne peu- 
vent donner lieu a aucune discus- 
sion ulterieure. 

Article 72. 

Les membres du Tribunal ont le 
droit de poser des questions aux 
agents et aux conseils des Parties 
et de leur demander des eclaircis- 
sements sur les points douteux. 

Ni les questions posees, ni les 
observations faites par les mem- 
bres du Tribunal pendant le cours 
des debats ne peuvent etre re. 
gardces comme l'expression des 
opinions du Tribunal en general 
ou de ses membres en particulier. 

Article 73. 

Le Tribunal est autorise" a de- 
terminer sa competence en inter- 



158 



APPENDIX. 



preting the "Compromis," as well 
as other acts and documents which 
may be invoked, and in applying 
the principles of law. 



Article 74. 

The Tribunal is entitled to issue 
rules of procedure for the conduct 
of the case, to decide the forms, 
order, and time in which each 
party must conclude its arguments 
and to arrange all the formalities 
required for dealing with the evi- 
dence. 



Article 75. 

The parties undertake to supply 
the Tribunal, as fully as they con- 
eider possible, with all the infor- 
mation required for deciding the 
case. 

Article 76. 

For all notices which the Tri- 
bunal has to serve in the territory 
of a third Contracting Power, the 
Tribunal shall apply direct to the 
Government of that Power. The 
same rule applies in the case of 
steps being taken to procure evi- 
dence on the spot. 

The requests for this purpose 
are to be executed as far as the 
means at the disposal of the Power 
applied to under its municipal law 
allow. They cannot be rejected 
unless the Power in question con- 
siders them calculated to impair 
its own sovereign rights or its 
safety. 

The Court will equally be al- 
ways entitled to act through the 
Power on whose territory it sits. 



pretant le compromis ainsi que 
les autres actes et documents qui 
peuvent etre invoques dans la 
matiere, et en appliquant les 
principes du droit. 

Article 74. 

Le Tribunal a le droit de rendre 
des ordonnances de procedure 
pour la direction du proces, de 
determiner les formes, l'ordre et 
les delais dans lesquels chaque 
Partie devra prendre ses conclu- 
sions finales, et de proccder a 
toutes les formalites que comporte 
I'administration des preuves. 

Article 75. 

Les Parties s'engagent a fournir 
au Tribunal, dans la plus large 
mesure qu'Elles jugeront possible, 
tous les moyens necessaires pour 
la decision i du litige. 

Article 76. 

Pour toutes les notifications que 
le Tribunal aurait a faire sur le 
territoire d'une tierce Puissance 
contractante, le Tribunal s'adres- 
sera directement au Gouveme- 
ment de cette Puissance. II en 
sera de meme s'il s'agit de faire 
proceder sur place a 1'etablisse- 
ment de tous moyens de preuve. 

Les requetes adressees a cet 
effet seront executees suivant les 
moyens dont la Puissance requise 
dispose d'apres sa legislation int4- 
rieure. Elles ne peuvent etre 
refusees que si cette Puissance les 
juge de nature a porter atteinte a 
sa souverainete ou a sa securite. 

Le Tribunal aura aussi toujours 
la faculte de recourir a Pinterme- 
diaire de la Puissance sur le terri- 
toire de laquelle il a son siege. 



SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. 



159 



Article 77. 

When the agents and counsel of 
the parties' have submitted all the 
explanations and evidence in sup- 
port of their case the President 
shall declare the discussion closed . 

Article 78. 

The Tribunal considers its de- 
cisions in private and the proceed- 
ings remain secret. 

All questions are decided by a 
majority of the members of the 
Tribunal. 

Article 79. 

The Award must give the reasons 
on which it is based. It contains 
the names of the Arbitrators; it is 
signed by the President and Regis- 
trar or by the Secretary acting as 
Registrar. 

Article 80. 

The Award is read out in public 
sitting, the agents and counsel of 
the parties being present or duly 
summoned to attend. 

Article 81. 

The Award, duly pronounced 
and notified to the agents of the 
parties, settles the dispute defi- 
nitely and without appeal. 

Article 82. 

Any dispute arising between the 
parties as to the interpretation and 
execution of the Award shall, in 
the absence of an Agreement to the 
contrary, be submitted to the 
Tribunal which pronounced it. 

Article 83. 

The parties can reserve in the 
" Compromis " the right to demand 
the revision of the Award. 



Article 77. 

Les agents et les conseils des 
Parties ayant presente tous les 
eclaircissements et preuves a l'ap- 
pui de leur cause, le President 
prononce la cloture des debats. 

Article 78. 

Les deliberations du Tribunal 
ont lieu a huis clos et restent se- 
cretes. 

Toute decision est prise a la 
majorite de ses membres. 

Article 79. 

La sentence arbitrale est mo- 
tivee. Elle mentionne les noms des 
arbitres; elle est signee par le Pre- 
sident et par le greffier ou le secre- 
taire faisant fonctions de greffier. 

Article 80. 

La sentence est lue en seance 
publique, les agents et les conseils 
des Parties presents ou dument 
appeles. 

Article 81. 

La sentence, dument prononcee 
et notifiee aux agents des Parties, 
decide definitivement et sans ap- 
pel la contestation. 

Article 82. 

Tout differend qui pourrait sur- 
gir entre les Parties, concernant 
1' interpretation et 1' execution de 
la sentence, sera, sauf stipulation 
contraire, soumis au jugement du 
Tribunal qui Fa rendue. 

Article 83. 

Les Parties peuvent se reserver 
dans le compromis de demander la 
revision de la sentence arbitrale. 



160 



APPENDIX. 



In this case and unless there be 
an Agreement to the contrary, the 
demand must be addressed to the 
Tribunal which pronounced the 
Award. It can only be made on 
the ground of the discovery of some 
new fact calculated to exercise a 
decisive influence upon the Award 
and which was unknown to the 
Tribunal and to the party which 
demanded the revision at the time 
the discussion was closed. 

Proceedings for revision can 
only be instituted by a decision of 
the Tribunal expressly recording 
the existence of the new fact, recog- 
nizing in it the character described 
in the preceding paragraph, and 
declaring the demand admissible 
on this ground. 

The "Compromis" fixes the pe- 
riod within which the demand for 
revision must be made. 



Dans ce cas, et sauf stipulation 
contraire, la demande doit §tre 
adressee au Tribunal qui a rendu 
la sentence. Elle ne peut etre 
motivee que par la decouverte 
d'un fait nouveau qui eut ete de 
nature a exercer une influence de- 
cisive sur la sentence et qui, lors 
de la cloture des debats, etait in- 
connu du Tribunal lui-meme et de 
la Partie qui a demande la re- 
vision. 

La procedure de revision ne peut 
etre ouverte que par une decision 
du Tribunal constatant expresse- 
ment 1' existence du fait nouveau, 
lui reconnaissant les caracteres 
prevus par le paragraphe prece- 
dent et declarant a ce titre la de- 
mande recevable. 

Le compromis determine le delai 
dans lequel la demande de re- 
vision doit etre formee. 



Article 84. 



Article 84. 



The Award is not binding except 
on the parties in dispute. 

When it concerns the interpre- 
tation of a Convention to which 
Powers other than those in dispute 
are parties, the litigants shall in- 
form all the Signatory Powers in 
good time. Each of these Powers 
is entitled to intervene in the 
case. If one or more avail them- 
selves of this right, the interpreta- 
tion contained in the Award is 
equally binding on them. 



La sentence arbitrale n'est ob- 
ligatoire que pour les Parties en 
litige. 

Lorsqu'il s'agit de l'interpreta- 
tion d'une Convention a laquelle 
ont participe d'autres Puissances 
que les Parties en litige, celles-ci 
avertissent en temps utile toutes 
les Puissances signataires. Cha- 
cune de ces Puissances a le droit 
d'intervenir au proces. Si une ou 
plusieurs d'entre Elles ont profite 
de cette faculte, 1' interpretation 
contenue dans la sentence est ega- 
lement obligatoire a leur egard. 



Article 85. 

Each party pays its own ex- 
penses and an equal share of the 
expenses of the Tribunal. 



Article 85. 

Chaque Partie supporte ses pro- 
pres frais et une part egale des frais 
du Tribunal. 



SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. 



161 



Chapter IV. — Arbitration by 
Summary Procedure. 

Article 86. 

With a view to facilitating the 
working of the system of arbitra- 
tion in disputes admitting of a 
summary procedure, the Contract- 
ing Powers adopt the following 
rules, which shall be observed in 
the absence of other arrangements 
and subject to the reservation that 
the provisions of Chapter III apply 
so far as may be. 

Article 87. 

Each of the parties in dispute 
appoints an Arbitrator. The two 
Arbitrators thus selected choose an 
Umpire. If they do not agree on 
this point, each of them proposes 
two candidates taken from the gen- 
eral list of the members of the Per- 
manent Court exclusive of the 
members appointed by either of 
the parties and not being nationals 
of either of them; which of the 
candidates thus proposed shall be 
the Umpire is determined by lot. 

The Umpire presides over the 
Tribunal, which gives its decisions 
by a majority of votes. 

Article 88. 

In the absence of any previous 
agreement the Tribunal, as soon as 
it is formed, settles the time within 
which the two parties must sub- 
mit their respective cases to it. 

Article 89. 

Each party is represented before 
the Tribunal by an agent, who 
serves as intermediary between 
the Tribunal and the Government 
who appointed him. 

55983— 09— -11 



Chapitre IV. — De la Procedure 
sommaire d' arbitrage. 

Article 86. 

En vue de faciliter le f onctionne- 
ment de la justice arbitrale, lors- 
qu'il s'agit de litiges de nature a 
comporter une procedure som- 
maire, les Puissances contrac- 
tantes arretent les regies ci-apres 
qui seront suivies en l'absence de 
stipulations differentes, et sous 
reserve, le cas echeant, de l'appli- 
cation des dispositions du Chapitre 
III qui ne seraient pas contraires. 

Article 87. 

Chacune des Parties en litige 
nomme un arbitre. Les deux 
arbitres ainsi designes choisissent 
un surarbitre. S'ils ne tombent 
pas d'accord a ce sujet, chacun 
presente deux candidats pris sur la 
liste generale des Membres de la 
Cour permanente en dehors des 
Membres indiques par chacune 
des Parties Elles-memes et n'etant 
les nationaux d'aucune d'Elles; le 
sort determine lequel des candi- 
dats ainsi presentes sera le surar- 
bitre. 

Le surarbitre preside le Tribu- 
nal, qui rend ses decisions a la 
majorite des voix. 

Article 88. 

A defaut d'accord prealable, le 
Tribunal fixe, des qu'il est con- 
stitue, le delai dans lequel les 
deux Parties devront lui soumettre 
leurs memoires respectifs. 

Article 89. 

Chaque Partie est representee 
devant le Tribunal par un agent 
qui sert d'intermediaire entre le 
Tribunal et le Gouvernement qui 
l'a designe. 



162 



APPENDIX. 



Article 90. 

The proceedings are conducted 
exclusively in writing. Each 
party, however, is entitled to ask 
that witnesses and experts should 
be called. The Tribunal has, for 
its part, the right to demand oral 
explanations from the agents of the 
two parties, as well as from the ex- 
perts and witnesses whose appear- 
ance in Court it may consider use- 
ful. 

Part V.— Final Provisions. 

Article 91. 

The present Convention, duly 
ratified, shall replace, as between 
the Contracting Powers, the Con- 
vention for the Pacific Settlement 
of International Disputes of the 
29th July, 1899. 

Article 92. 

The present Convention shall be 
ratified as soon as possible. 

The ratifications shall be de- 
posited at The Hague. 

The first deposit of ratifications 
shall be recorded in a proces-verbal 
signed by the Representatives of 
the Powers which take part therein 
and by the Netherlands Minister 
for Foreign Affairs. 

The subsequent deposits of rati- 
fications shall be made by means 
of a written notification, addressed 
to the Netherlands Government 
and accompanied by the instru- 
ment of ratification. 

A duly certified copy of the 
proch-verbal relative to the first 
deposit of ratifications, of the noti- 
fications mentioned in the preced- 
ing paragraph, and of the instru- 
ments of ratification, shall be 
immediately sent by the Nether- 
lands Government, through the 
diplomatic channel, to the Powers 



Article 90. 

La procedure a lieu exclusive- 
ment par ecrit. Toutefois, chaque 
Partie a le droit de demand er la 
comparution de temoins et d' ex- 
perts. Le Tribunal a, de son cote, 
la faculte de demander des expli- 
cations orales aux agents des deux 
Parties, ainsi qu'aux experts et 
aux temoins dont il juge la com- 
parution utile. 

Titre V. —Dispositions finales. 

Article 91. 

La presente Convention dument 
ratifiee remplacera, dans les rap- 
ports entre les Puissances con- 
tractantes, la Convention pour le 
reglement pacifique des confiits 
internationaux du 29 juillet 1899. 

Article 92. 

La presente Convention sera 
ratifiee aiissitot que possible. 

Les ratifications seront depos^es 
a La Haye. 

Le premier depot de ratifica- 
tions sera constate par un proces- 
verbal signe par les representants 
des Puissances qui y prennent part 
et par le Ministre des Affaires 
Etrangeres des Pays-Bas. 

Les depots ulterieurs de ratifica- 
tions se feront au moyen d'une 
notification ecrite, adressee au 
Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et 
accompagnee de 1' instrument de 
ratification. 

Copie certifiee conforme du pro- 
ces-verbal relatif au premier depot 
de ratification, des notifications 
mentionnees a l'alinea precedent, 
ainsi que des instruments de ratifi- 
cation, sera immediatementremise, 
par les soins du Gouvernement des 
Pays-Bas et par la voie diplo- 
matique, aux Puissances conviees 



SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. 163 



invited to the Second Peace Con- 
ference, as well as to other Powers 
which shall have adhered to the 
Convention. In the cases con- 
templated in the preceding para- 
graph, the said Government shall 
at the same time inform the Powers 
of the date on which it received 
the notification. 

Article 93. 

Non-Signatory Powers which 
have been invited to the Second 
Peace Conference may adhere to 
the present Convention. 

The Power which desires to ad- 
here notifies its intention in writ- 
ing to the Netherlands Govern- 
ment, forwarding to it the act of 
adhesion, which shall be deposited 
in the archives of the said Govern- 
ment. 

This Government shall immedi- 
ately forward to all the other 
Powers invited to the Second 
Peace Conference a duly certified 
oopy of the notification as well as 
of the act of adhesion,, mentioning 
the date on which it received the 
notification. 

Article 94. 

The conditions on which the 
Powers which have not been in- 
vited to the Second Peace Confer- 
ence may adhere to the present 
Convention shall form the subject 
of a subsequent Agreement be- 
tween the Contracting Powers. 

Article 95. 

The present Convention shall 
take effect, in the case of the Pow- 
ers which were not a party to the 
first deposit of ratifications, sixty 
days after the date of the proc&s- 
verbal of this deposit, and, in the 
case of the Powers which ratify 
subsequently or which adhere, 



a la Deuxieme Conference de la 
Paix, ainsi qu'aux autres Puis- 
sances qui auront adhere a la Con- 
vention. Dans les cas vises par 
l'alinea precedent, ledit Gouverne- 
ment Leur fera connaitre en meme 
temps la date a laquelle il a recu. 
la notification. 

Article 93. 

Les Puissances non signataires 
qui ont ete conviees a la Deuxieme 
Conference de la Paix pourront 
adherer a la presente Convention. 

La Puissance qui desire adherer 
notifie par ecrit son intention au 
Gouvernement des Pays-Bas en 
lui transmettant Facte d'adhesion 
qui sera depose dans les archives 
dudit Gouvernement. 

Ce Gouvernement transmettra 
immediatement a toutes les autres 
Puissances conviees a la Deuxieme 
Conference de la Paix copie certi- 
fiee conforme de la notification 
ainsi que de l'acte d'adhesion, en 
indiquant la date a laquelle il a 
recu la notification. 

Article 94. 

Les conditions auxquelles les 
Puissances qui n'ont pas ete con- 
viees a la Deuxieme Conference de 
la Paix, pourront adherer a la pre- 
sente Convention, formeront l'objet 
d'une entente ulterieure entre les 
Puissances contractantes. 

Article 95. 

La presente Convention pro- 
duira effet, pour les Puissances qui 
auront participe au premier depot 
de ratifications, soixante- jours 
apres la date du proces-verbal de 
ce depot et, pour les Puissances 
qui ratifieront ulterieurement ou 
qui adhereront, soixante jours 



164 



APPENDIX. 



sixty days after the notification apres que la notification de leur 

of their ratification or of their ad- ratification ou de leur adhesion 

hesion has been received by the aura ete recue par le Gouverne- 

Netherlands Government. ment des Pays-Bas. 



Article 96. 

In the event of one of the Con- 
tracting Parties wishing to de- 
nounce the present Convention, 
the denunciation shall be notified 
in writing to the Netherlands Gov- 
ernment, which shall immediately 
communicate a duly certified copy 
of the notification to all the other 
Powers informing them of the date 
on which it was received. 

The denunciation shall only 
have effect in regard to the notify- 
ing Power, and one year after the 
notification has reached the Neth- 
erlands Government. 

Article 97. 

A register kept by the Nether- 
lands Ministry for Foreign Affairs 
shall give the date of the deposit 
of ratifications effected in virtue 
of Article 92, paragraphs 3 and 4, 
as well as the date on which the 
notifications of adhesion (Article 
93, paragraph 2) or of denunciation 
(Article 96, paragraph 1) have been 
received. 

Each Contracting Power is en- 
titled to have access to this register 
and to be supplied with duly cer- 
tified extracts from it. 

In faith whereof the Plenipoten- 
tiaries have appended their signa- 
tures to the present Convention, o. 

Done at The Hague, the 18th 
October, 1907, in a single copy, 
which shall remain deposited in 
the archives of the Netherlands 
Government, and duly certified 
copies of which shall be sent, 
through the diplomatic channel, 
to the Contracting Powers. 



Article 96. 

S'il arrivait qu'une des Puis- 
sances contractantes voulut denon- 
cer la presente Convention, la de- 
nonciation sera notifiee par ecrit 
au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas 
qui communiquera immediate- 
ment copie certifiee conforme de la 
notification a toutes les autres 
Puissances en leur faisant savoir la 
date a laquelle il l'a recue. 

La denonciation ne produira ses 
effets qu'a l'egard de la Puissance 
qui l'aura notifiee et un an apres 
que la notification en sera parvenu 
au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas. 

Article 97. 

Un registre tenupar le Ministere 
des Affaires Etrangeres des Pays- 
Bas indiquera la date du depot de 
ratifications effectue en vertu de 
Particle 92 alineas 3 et 4, ainsi que 
la date a laquelle auront ete recues 
les notifications d'adhesion (article 
93 alinea 2) ou de denonciation 
(article 96 alinea 1). 

Chaque Puissance contractante 
est admise a prendre connaissance 
de ce registre et a en demander des 
extraits certifies conformes. 

En foi de quoi, les Plenipoten- 
tiaires ont revetu la presente Con- 
vention de leurs signatures. 

Fait a La Have, le dix-huit octo- 
bre mil neuf cent sept, en un seul 
exemplaire qui restera depose dans 
les archives du Gouvernement des 
Pays-Bas et dont des copies certi- 
fiees conformes, seront remises par 
la voie diplomatique aux Puis- 
sances contractantes. 



a See at end, Table of Signatures. 



EECOVEBY OF CONTKACT DEBTS. 165 

RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION. 

Resolved {two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), That 
the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of a convention signed 
by the delegates of the United States to the Second International 
Peace Conference, held at The Hague from June sixteenth to October 
eighteenth, nineteen hundred and seven, for the pacific settlement of 
international disputes, subject to the declaration made by the delegates 
of the United States before signing said convention, namely: 

" Nothing contained in this convention shall be so construed as to 
require the United States of America to depart from its traditional 
policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in 
the political questions of policy or internal administration of any for- 
eign state; nor shall anything contained in the said convention be 
construed to imply a relinquishment by the United States of its tradi- 
tional attitude toward purely American questions." 

Resolved further , as a part of this act of ratification, That the United 
States approves this convention with the understanding that recourse 
to the permanent court for the settlement of differences can be had 
only by agreement thereto through general or special treaties of arbi- 
tration heretofore or hereafter concluded between the parties in dis- 
pute; and the United States now exercises the option contained in arti- 
cle fifty-three of said convention, to exclude the formulation of the 
' ' compromis ' ' by the permanent court, and hereby excludes from the 
competence of the permanent court the power to frame the "compro- 
mis" required by general or special treaties of arbitration concluded or 
hereafter to be concluded by the United States, and further expressly 
declares that the "compromis" required by any treaty of arbitration 
to which the United States may be a party shall be settled only by 
agreement between the contracting parties, unless such treaty shall 
expressly provide otherwise. 



CONVENTION RESPECTING THE LIMITATION OF THE 
EMPLOYMENT OF FORCE FOR THE RECOVERY OF 
CONTRACT DEBTS. 

Signed by the United States delegates. Ratification advised by the Senate, 

April 7, 1908. 

The Contracting Powers (see Final Act) being desirous of avoiding 
between nations armed conflicts of a pecuniary origin arising from con- 
tract debts which are claimed from the Government of one country by 
theGovernment of another country as due to its nationals, have resolved 
to conclude a Convention to this effect, and have appointed the follow- 
ing as their Plenipotentiaries: 

[For names of Plenipotentiaries, see Final Act.] 



166 



APPENDIX. 



Who, after depositing their full powers, found in good and due form 7 
have agreed upon the following provisions : 



Article 1. 

The Contracting Powers agree 
not to have recourse to armed 
force for the recovery of contract 
debts claimed from the Govern- 
ment of one country by the Govern- 
ment of another country as being 
due to its nationals. 

This undertaking is,' however, 
not applicable when the debtor 
State refuses or neglects to reply 
to an offer of arbitration, or, after 
accepting the offer, prevents any 
"Compromis" from being agreed 
on, or, after the arbitration, fails 
to submit to the award. 

Article 2. 

It is further agreed that the ar- 
bitration mentioned in paragraph 
2 of the foregoing Article shall be 
subject to the procedure laid down 
in Part IV, Chapter III, of The 
Hague Convention for the Pacific 
Settlement of International Dis- 
putes. The award shall deter- 
mine, except where otherwise 
agreed between the parties, the 
validity of the claim, the amount 
of the debt, and the time and mode 
of payment. 

Article 3. 

The present Convention shall be 
ratified as soon as possible. 

The ratifications shall be de- 
posited at The Hague. 

The first deposit of ratifications 
shall be recorded in a prods- 
verbal signed by the Representa- 
tives of the Powers taking part 
therein and by the Netherlands 
Minister for Foreign Affairs. 



Article Premier. 

Les Puissances contractantes 
sont convenues de ne pas avoir re- 
cours a la force armee pour le re- 
couvrement de dettes contractu- 
elles reclamees au Gouvernement 
d'un pays par le Gouvernement 
d'un autre pays comme dues a 
ses nationaux. 

Toutefois, cette stipulation ne 
pourra etre appliquee quand l'Etat 
debiteur refuse ou laisse sans re- 
ponse une offre d 'arbitrage, ou, en 
cas d'acceptation, rend impossible 
I'etabligsement du compromis, ou, 
apres l'arbitrage, manque de se 
conformer a la sentence rendue. 

Article 2. 

II estrde plus convenu que l'ar- 
bitrage, mentionne dans l'alinea 2 
de l'article precedent, sera soumis 
a la procedure prevue par le titre 
I Vchapitre III de la Convention de 
La Haye pour le reglement paci- 
fique des conflits internationaux. 
Le jugement arbitral determine, 
sauf les arrangements particuliers 
des Parties, le bienfonde de la re- 
clamation, le montant de la dette, 
le temps et le mode de paiement. 

Article 3. 

La presente Convention sera 
ratifiee aussitot que possible. 

Les ratifications seront deposees 
a La Haye. 

Le premier depot de ratifica- 
tions sera constate par un proces- 
verbal signe par les representants 
des Puissances qui y prennent part 
et par le Ministre des Affaires 
Etrangeres des Pays-Bas. 



RECOVERY OF CONTRACT DEBTS. 



167 



The subsequent deposits of rati- 
fications shall be made by means 
of a written notification addressed 
to the Netherlands Government 
and accompanied by the instru- 
ment of ratification. 

A duly certified copy of the 
proces-verbal relative to the first 
deposit of ratifications, of the noti- 
fications mentioned in the pre- 
ceding paragraph, as well as of the 
instruments of ratification, shall 
be sent immediately by the 
Netherlands Government, through 
the diplomatic channel, to the 
Powers invited to the Second 
Peace Conference, as well as to 
other Powers which shall have ad- 
hered to the Convention. In the 
cases contemplated in the preced- 
ing paragraph, the said Govern- 
ment shall inform them at the same 
time of the date on which it re- 
ceived the notification. 

Article 4. 

Non-Signatory Powers may ad- 
here to the present Convention. 

The Power which desires to 
adhere notifies its intention in 
writing to the Netherlands Gov- 
ernment, forwarding to it the act 
of adhesion, which shall be de- 
posited in the archives of the said 
Government. 

The said Government shall for- 
ward immediately to all the other 
Powers invited to the Second 
Peace Conference a duly certified 
copy of the notification, as well as 
of the act of adhesion, mentioning 
the date on which it received the 
notification. - 

Article 5. 

The present Convention shall 
come into force, in the case of 
the Powers which were a party to 



Les depots ulterieurs de ratifica- 
tions se feront au moyen d'une no- 
tification ecrite, adressee au Gou- 
vernement des Pays-Bas et accom- 
pagnee de Finstrument de ratifica- 
tion. 

Copie certifiee conforme du pro- 
ces-verbal relatif au premier depot 
de ratifications, des notifications 
mentionnees a l'alinea precedent, 
ainsi que des instruments de ratifi- 
cation, sera irnmediatement re- 
mise, par les soins du Gouverne- 
ment des Pays-Bas et par la voie 
diplomatique, aux Puissances con- 
viees a la Deuxieme Conference de 
la Paix, ainsi qu'aux autres Puis- 
sances qui auront adhere a la Con- 
vention. Dans les cas vises par 
Talinea precedent, ledit Gouver- 
nement leur fera connaitre en 
meme temps la date a laquelle il a 
recu la notification. 

Article 4. 

Les Puissances non signataires 
sont admises a adherer a la pre- 
sente Convention. 

La Puissance qui desire adherer 
notifie par ecrit son intention au 
Gouvernement des Pays-Bas en lui 
transmettant l'acte d'adhesion qui 
sera depose dans les archives dudit 
Gouvernement. 

Ce Gouvernement transmettra 
irnmediatement a toutes les autres 
Puissances conviees a la Deuxieme 
Conference de la Paix copie cer- 
tifiee conforme de la notification 
ainsi que de l'acte d'adhesion, en 
indiquant la date a laquelle il a 
recu la notification. 

Article 5. 

La presente Convention pro- 
duira effet pour les Puissances qui 
auront participe au premier depot 



168 



APPENDIX. 



the first deposit of ratifications, 
sixty days after the date of the 
proems-verbal of this deposit, in 
the case of the Powers which 
ratify subsequently or which ad- 
here, sixty days after the notifica- 
tion of their ratification or of their 
adhesion has been received by the 
Netherlands Government. 

Article 6. 

In the event of one of the Con- 
tracting Powers wishing to de- 
nounce the present Convention, 
the denunciation shall be notified 
in writing to the Netherlands Gov- 
ernment, which shall immediately 
communicate a duly certified copy 
of the notification to all the other 
Powers, informing them at the 
same time of the date on which it 
was received. 

The denunciation shall only 
have effect in regard to the noti- 
fying Power, and one year after the 
notification has reached the 
Netherlands Government. 

Article 7. 

A register kept by the Nether- 
lands Ministry for Foreign Affairs 
shall give the date of the deposit 
of ratifications made in virtue of 
Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, as 
well as the date on which the noti- 
fications of adhesion (Article 4, 
paragraph 2) or of denunciation 
(Article 6, paragraph 1) were 
received. 

Each Contracting* Power is en- 
titled to have access to this 
register and to be supplied with 
duly certified extracts from it. 

In faith whereof the ' Pleni- 
potentiaries have appended their 
signatures to the present Conven- 
tion, a 



de ratifications, soixante jours 
apres la date du proces-verbal de 
ce depot, pour les Puissances qui 
ratifieront ulterieurement ou qui 
adhereront, soixante jours apres 
que la notification de leur ratifica- 
tion ou de leur adhesion aura et6 
recue par le Gouvernement des 
Pays-Bas. 

Article 6. 

S'il arrivait qu'une des Puis- 
sances contractantes voulut de- 
noncer la presente Convention, la 
denonciation sera notifiee par ecrit 
au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas 
qui communiquera immediate- 
ment copie certifiee conforme de la 
notification a toutes les autres Puis- 
sances en leur faisant savoir la 
date a laquelle il l'a recue. 

La denonciation ne produira ses 
effets qu'a Pegard de la Puissance 
qui l'aura notifiee et un an apres 
que la notification en sera parve- 
nue au Gouvernement des Pays- 
Bas. 

Article 7. 

Un registre tenu par le Minis- 
tere des Affaires Etrangeres des 
Pays-Bas indiquera la date du de- 
pot de ratifications effectue en 
vertu de 1' article 3 alineas 3 et 4, 
ainsi que la date a laquelle auront 
ete recues les notifications d'adhe- 
sion (article 4 alinea 2) ou de de- 
nonciation (article 6 alinea 1). 

Chaque Puissance contractante 
est admise a prendre connaissance 
de ce registre et a en demander des 
extraits certifies conformes. 

En foi de quoi, les Plenipoten- 
tiaires ont revetu la presente Con- 
vention de leurs signatures. 



a See at end, Table of Signatures. 



OPENING OF HOSTILITIES. 169 

Done at the Hague, the 18th Fait a La Haye, le dix-huit octo- 

October, 1907, in a single copy, bre mil neuf cent sept, en un seul 

which shall remain deposited in the exemplaire qui restera depose dans 

archives of the Netherlands Gov- les archives du Gouvernement des 

ernment, and duly certified copies Pays-Bas et dont des copies certi- 

of which shall be sent to the Con- fiees conformes seront remises par 

tracting Powers through the dip- la voie diplomatique aux Puis- 

lomatic channel. sances contractantes. 



RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION. 

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), 
that the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of a convention 
signed by the delegates of the United States to the Second Interna- 
tional Peace Conference held at The Hague from June 15 to October 
18, 1907, respecting the limitation of the employment of force for the 
recovery of contract debts. 

Resolved further , as a part of this act of ratification, that the United 
States approves this convention with the understanding that recourse 
to the permanent court for the settlement of the differences referred 
to in said convention can be had only by agreement thereto through 
general or special treaties of arbitration heretofore or hereafter con- 
cluded between the parties in dispute. 



CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE OPENING OF HOS- 
TILITIES. 

Signedby the United States Delegates. Ratification advisedly the Senate, 

March 10, 1908. 

The Contracting Powers (see Final Act) considering that it is impor- 
tant, in order to ensure the maintenance of pacific relations, that hos- 
tilities should not commence without previous warning; 

That it is equally important that the existence of a state of war 
should be notified without delay to neutral Powers; 

Being desirous of concluding a Convention to this effect, have 
appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries: 

[For names of Plenipotentiaries, see Final Act.] 

Who, after depositing their full powers, found in good and due form, 
have agreed upon the following provisions: 

Article 1. Article Premier. 

The Contracting Powers recog- Les Puissances contractantes 

nize that hostilities between them- reconnaissent que les hostilites 

selves must not commence with- entre elles ne doi vent pas commen- 

out previous and explicit warning, cer sans un avertissement prealable 

in the form either of a reasoned et non equivoque, qui aura, soit la 

declaration of war or of an ultima- forme d'une declaration de guerre 

turn with conditional declaration motivee, soit celle d'un ultimatum 

of war. avec declaration de guerre condi- 

tionnelle. 



170 



APPENDIX. 



Article 2. 

The existence of a state of war 
must be notified to the neutral 
Powers without delay, and shall 
not take effect in regard to them 
until after the receipt of a notifica- 
tion, • which may, however, be 
given by telegraph. Neutral Pow- 
ers, nevertheless, cannot rely on 
the absence of notification if it is 
clearly established that they were 
in fact aware of the existence of a 
state of war. 

Article 3. 

Article 1 of the present Conven- 
tion shall take effect in case of war 
between two or more of the Con- 
tracting Powers. 

Article 2 is binding as between 
a belligerent Power which is a 
party to the Convention and neu- 
tral Powers which are also parties 
to the Convention. 



Article 2. 

L'etat de guerre devra etre noti- 
fie sans retard aux Puissances neu- 
tres et ne produira effet a leur egard 
qu'apres reception d'une notifica- 
tion qui pourra etre faite 1 meme 
par voie telegraphique. Toute- 
fois les Puissances neutres ne pour- 
raient invoquer l'absence de noti- 
fication, s'il etait etabli d'une 
maniere non douteuse qu'en fait 
elles connaissaient l'etat de guerre. 

Article 3. 

L' article 1 de la presente Con- 
vention produira effet en cas de 
guerre entre deux ou plusieurs des 
Puissances contractantes. 

L'article 2 est obligatoire dans 
les rapports entre un belligerant 
contractant et les Puissances neu- 
tres egalement contractantes. 



(Five articles follow, Nos. 4 to 8, similar to Articles 3 to 7 of the 
Convention for the Recovery of Contract Debts.) 



CONVENTION RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUS- 
TOMS OF WAR ON LAND. 



Signed by the United States Delegates. Ratification advised by the Senate,. 

March 10, 1908. 

The Contracting Powers (see Final Act) seeing that, while seeking 
means to preserve peace and prevent armed conflicts between nations, 
it is likewise necessary to bear in mind the case where the appeal to 
arms has been brought about by events which their care was unable 
to avert; 

Animated by the desire to serve, even in this extreme case, the 
interests of humanity and the ever progressive needs of civilization; 

Thinking it important, with this object, to revise the general laws 
and customs of war, either with a view to defining them with greater 
precision or to confining them within such limits as would mitigate 
their severity as far as possible; 



LAWS OF WAR ON LAND. 171 

Have deemed it necessary to complete and explain in certain par- 
ticulars the work of the First Peace Conference, which, following on 
the Brussels Conference of 1874, and inspired by the ideas dictated by 
a wise and generous forethought, adopted provisions intended to define 
and govern the usages of war on land. 

According to the views of the High Contracting Parties, these pro- 
visions, the wording of which has been inspired by the desire to dimin- 
ish the evils of war, as far as military requirements permit, are intended 
to serve as a general rule of conduct for the belligerents in their mutual 
relations and in their relations with the inhabitants. 

It has not, however, been found possible at present to concert 
Regulations covering all the circumstances which arise in practice. 

On the other hand, the High Contracting Parties clearly -do not 
intend that unforeseen cases should, in the absence of a written under- 
taking, be left to the arbitrary judgment of military commanders. 

Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the 
High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases 
not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants 
and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the 
principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages estab- 
lished among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the 
dictates of the public conscience. 

They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 
2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood. 

The High Contracting Parties, wishing to conclude a fresh Conven- 
tion to this effect, have appointed the following as their Plenipoten- 
tiaries: — 

[For names of Plenipotentiaries, see Final Act.] 

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and 
due form, have agreed upon the following: 

Article 1. Article Premier. 

The Contracting Powers shall Les Puissances contractantes 

issue instructions to their armed donneront a leurs forces armees de 

land forces which shall be in con- terre des instructions qui seront 

formity with the Regulations re- conformes au Reglement concer- 

specting the Laws and Customs of nant les lois et coutumes de la 

War on Land, annexed to the pres- guerre sur terre, annexe a la pre- 

ent Convention. sente Convention. 

Article 2. Article 2. 

The provisions contained in the Les dispositions contenues dans 
Regulations referred to in Article le Reglement vise a Particle l er 
1, as well as in the present Conven- ainsi que dans la presente Conven- 
tion, do not apply except between tion, ne sont applicables qu'entre 
Contracting Powers, and then only les Puissances contractantes et 
if all the belligerents are parties to seulement si les belligerants sont 
the Convention. tous parties a la Convention. 



172 



APPENDIX. 



Article 3. 

A belligerent party which vio- 
lates the provisions of the said Reg- 
ulations shall, if the case demands, 
be liable to pay compensation. It 
shall be responsible for all acts 
committed by persons forming 
part of its armed forces. 

Article 4. 

The present Convention, duly 
ratified, shall as between the Con- 
tracting Powers, be substituted for 
the Convention of the 29th July, 
1899, respecting the Laws and Cus- 
toms of War on Land. 

The Convention of 1899 remains 
in force as between the Powers 
which signed it, and which do not 
also ratify the present Convention. 



Article 3. 

La JPartie belligerante qui vio- 
lerait les dispositions dudit Regle- 
ment sera tenue a, indemnite, s'il 
y a lieu. Elle sera responsable de 
tous actes commis par les personnes 
faisant partie de sa force armee. 

Article 4. 

La presente Convention dument 
ratifiee remplacera, dans les rap- 
ports entre les Puissances con- 
ractantes, la Convention du 29 
juillet 1899 concernant les lois et 
coutumes de la guerre sur terre. 

La Convention de 1899 reste en 
vigueur dans les rapports entre les 
Puissances qui l'ont signee et qui 
ne ratifieraient pas egalement la 
presente Convention. 



(Five articles follow, Nos. 5 to 9, similar to Articles 3 to 7 of the 
Convention for the Recovery of Contract Debts.) 



Annex to the Convention. 

Regulations respecting the Laws and 
Customs of War on Land. 

Section I. — On Belligerents. 

Chapter 1. — The Qualifications of 
Belligerents. 

Article 1. 

The laws, rights, and duties of 
war apply not only to armies, but 
also to militia and volunteer corps 
fulfilling the following conditions: 



1. To be commanded by a per- 
son responsible for his subordi- 
nates; 

2. To have fixed a distinctive 
emblem recognizable at a distance ; 

3. To carry arms openly; and 



Annexe a la Convention. 

Reglement concernant les lois et 
coutumes de la guerre sur terre. 

Section I. — Des Belligerants. 

Chapitre I. — De la qualite de belli- 
gerant. 

Article Premier. 

Les lois, les droits et les devoirs 
de la guerre ne s'appliquent pas 
seulement a l'armee, mais encore 
aux milices et aux corps de volon- 
taires reunissant les conditions 
suivantes: 

1°. d'avoir a leur tete une per- 
sonne responsable pour ses subor- 
donnes; 

2°. d'avoir un signe distinctif 
fixe et reconnaissable a distance; 

3°. de porter les armes ouverte- 
ment et; 



LAWS OF WAR ON LAND. 



173 



4. To conduct their operations 
in accordance with the laws and 
customs of war. 

In countries where militia or 
volunteer corps constitute the 
army, or form part of it, they are 
included under the denomination 
"army." 

Article 2. 

The inhabitants of a territory 
which has not been occupied, who, 
on the approach of the enemy, 
spontaneously take up arms to re- 
sist the invading troops without 
having bad time to organize them- 
selves in accordance with Article 1, 
shall be regarded as belligerents if 
they carry arms openly and if they 
respect the laws and customs of 

war. 

Article 3. 

The armed forces of the belliger- 
ent parties may consist of combat- 
ants and noncombatants. In the 
case of capture by the enemy, both 
have a right to be treated as pris- 
oners of war. 



Chapter II. — Prisoners of war. 

Article 4. 

Prisoners of war are in the power 
of the hostile Government, but not 
of the individuals or corps who cap- 
ture them. 

They must be humanely treated. 

All their personal belongings, 
except arms, horses, and military 
papers, remain their property. 

Article 5. 

Prisoners of war may be interned 
in a town, fortress, camp, or other 
placV and bound not to go beyond 



4°. de se conformer dans leurs 
operations aux lois et coutumes de 
la guerre. 

Dans les pays ou les milices ou 
des corps de volontaires constitu- 
ent l'armee ou en font partie, ils 
sont compris sous la denomination 
d'armee. 

Article 2. 

La population d'un territoire 
non occupe qui, a l'approche de 
Pennemi, prend spontanement les 
armes pour combattre les troupes 
d'invasion sans avoir eu le temps 
de s' organiser conformement a 
Particle premier, sera consideree 
comme belligerante si elle porte 
les armes ouvertement et si elle 
respecte les lois et coutumes de la 
guerre. 

Article 3. 

Les forces armees des Parties 
belligerantes peuvent se composer 
de combattants et de non-combat- 
tants. En cas de capture par l'en- 
nemi, les uns et les autres ont droit 
au traitement des prisonniers de 
guerre. 

Chapitre II.i — Des prisonniers de 
guerre. 

Article 4. 

Les prisonniers de guerre sont 
au pouvoir du Gouvernement en- 
nemi, mais non des individus ou 
des corps qui les ont captures. 
||Ils doivent 6tre traites avec 
humanite. 

§|Tout ce qui leur appartient per- 
sonnellement, excepte les armes, 
les chevaux et les papiers militaires, 
reste leur propriete. 

Article 5. 

Les prisonniers de guerre peu- 
vent etre assujettis a l'interne- 
ment dans une ville, forteresse, 



174 



APPENDIX. 



certain fixed limits; but they can- 
not be confined except as an indis- 
pensable measure of safety and 
only while the circumstances 
which necessitate the measure con- 
tinue to exist. 



Article 6. 

The State may utilize the labor 
of prisoners of war according to 
their rank and aptitude, officers 
excepted. The tasks shall not be 
excessive and shall have no con- 
nection with the operations of the 
war. 

Prisoners may be authorized to 
work for the public service, for 
private persons, or on their own 
account. 

Work done for the State is paid 
at the rates in force for work of a 
similar kind done by soldiers of the 
national army, or, if there are none 
in force, at a rate according to the 
work executed. 

When the work is for other 
branches of the public service or 
for private persons the conditions 
are settled in agreement with the 
military authorities. 

The wages of the prisoners shall 
go towards improving their posi- 
tion, and the balance shall be paid 
them on their release, after deduct- 
ing the cost of their maintenance. 

Article 7. 

The Government into whose 
hands prisoners of war have fallen 
is charged with their maintenance. 



camp ou localite quelconque, avec 
obligation de ne pas s'en eloigner 
au dela de certaines limites deter- 
minees; mais ils ne peuvent etre 
enfermes que par mesure de 
surete indispensable, et seule- 
ment pendant la duree des circon- 
stances qui necessitent cette me- 
sure. 

Article 6. 

L'Etat peut employer, comme 
travailleurs, les prisonniers de 
guerre, selon leur grade et leurs 
aptitudes, a l'exception des offi- 
ciers. Ces travaux ne seront pas 
excessifs et n'auront aucun rap- 
port avec les operations de la 
guerre. 

Les prisonniers peuvent etre au- 
torises a travailler pour le compte 
d 'administrations publiques ou de 
particuliers, ou pour leur propre 
compte* 

Les travaux faits pour l'Etat 
sont payes d'apres les tarifs en 
vigueur pour les militaires de 
l'armee nationale executant les 
me mes travaux, ou, s'il n'en existe 
pas, d'apres un tarif en rapport 
avec les travaux executes. 

Lorsque les travaux ont lieu 
pour le compte d'autres adminis- 
trations publiques ou pour des par- 
ticuliers, les conditions en sont 
reglees d'accord avec l'autorite 
militaire. 

Le salaire des prisonniers contri- 
buera a adoucir leur position, et 
le surplus leur sera compte au 
moment de leur liberation, sauf 
defalcation des fraisd'entretien. 

Article 7. 

Le Gouvernement au pouvoir 
duquel se trouvent les prisonniers 
de guerre est charge de leur entre- 
tien. 



LAWS OF WAR ON LAND. 



175 



in the absence of a special agree- 
ment between the belligerents, 
prisoners of war shall be treated as 
regards board* lodging, and cloth- 
ing on the same footing as the 
troops of the Government who 
captured them. 

Article 8. 

Prisoners of war shall be subject 
to the laws, regulations, and orders 
in force in the army of the State in 
whose power they are. Any act of 
insubordination justifies the adop- 
tion towards them of such measures 
of severity as may be considered 
necessary. 

Escaped prisoners who are re- 
taken before being able to rejoin 
their own army or before leaving 
the territory occupied by the army 
which captured them are liable to 
disciplinary punishment. 

Prisoners who, after succeeding 
in escaping, are again taken pris- 
oners, are not liable to any punish- 
ment on account of the previous 
flight. 

Article 9. 

Every prisoner of war is bound 
to give, if he is questioned on the 
subject, his true name and rank, 
and if he infringes this rule, he is 
liable to have the advantages given 
to prisoners of his class curtailed. 



Article 10. 

Prisoners of war may be set at 
liberty on parole if the laws of their 
country allow, and, in such cases, 
they are bound, on their personal 
honor, scrupulously to fulfil, both 
towards their own Government and 
the Government by whom they 



A defaut d'une entente speciale 
entre les belligerants, les prison- 
niers de guerre seront traites pour 
la nourriture, le couchage et l'ha- 
billement, sur le meme pied que 
les troupes du Gouvernement qui 
les aura captures. 

Article 8. 

Les prisonniers de guerre seront 
soumis aux lois, reglements et 
ordres en vigueur dans l'armee de 
l'Etat au pouvoir duquel ils se 
trouvent. Tout acte d'insubordi- 
nation autorise, a leur egard, les 
mesures de rigueur necessaires. 

Les prisonniers evades, qui se- 
raient repris avant d'avoir pu re- 
joindre leur armee ou avant de 
quitter le territoire occupe par 
l'armee qui les aura captures, sont 
passibles de peines disciplinaires. 

Les prisonniers qui, apres avoir 
reussi a s' evader, sont de nouveau 
faits prisonniers, ne sont passibles 
d'aucune peine pour la fuite ante- 
rieure. 

Article 9. 

Chaque prisonnier de guerre 
est tenu de declarer, s'il est inter- 
roge a ce sujet, ses veritables noms 
et grade et, dans le cas oil il en- 
freindrait cette regie, il s' expose- 
rait a une restriction des avantages 
accordes aux prisonniers de guerre 
de sa categoric 

Article 10. 

Les prisonniers de guerre peu- 
vent etre mis en liberte sur parole, 
si les lois de leur pays les y auto- 
risent, et, en pareil cas, ils sont 
obliges, sous la garantie de leur 
honneur personnel, de remplir 
scrupuleusement, tant vis-a-vis de 



176 



APPENDIX. 



were made prisoners, the engage- 
ments they have contracted. 



In such cases their own Govern- 
ment is bound neither to require 
of nor accept from them any serv- 
ice incompatible with the parole 
given. 

Article 11. 

A prisoner of war cannot be com- 
pelled to accept his liberty on pa- 
role; similarly the hostile Govern- 
ment is not obliged to accede to 
the request of the prisoner to be 
set at liberty on parole. 

Article 12. 

Prisoners of war liberated on pa- 
role and recaptured bearing arms 
against the Government to whom 
they had [pledged their honor, or 
against the allies of that Govern- 
ment, forfeit their right to be 
treated as prisoners of war, and can 
be brought before the Courts. 

Article 13. 

Individuals who follow an army 
without directly belonging to it, 
such as newspaper correspondents 
and reporters, sutlers and con- 
tractors, who fall into the enemy's 
hands and whom the latter thinks 
expedient to detain, are entitled 
to be treated as prisoners of war, 
provided they are in possession of 
a certificate from the military au- 
thorities of the army which they 
were accompanying. 

Article 14. 

An inquiry office for prisoners of 
war is instituted on the commence- 
ment of hostilities in each of the 



leur propre Gouvernement que vis- 
a-vis de celui qui les a faits prison- 
niers, les engagements qu'ils au- 
raient contractus. 

Dans le meme cas, leur propre 
Gouvernement est tenu de n'exi- 
ger ni accepter d'eux aucun ser- 
vice contraire a la parole donnee. 

Article 11. 

Un prisonnier de guerre ne peut 
etre contraint d'accepter sa liberte 
sur parole; de meme le Gouver- 
nement ennemi n'est pas oblige 
d'acceder a la demande du prison- 
nier reclamant sa mise en liberte" 
sur parole. 

Article 12. 

Tout prisonnier de guerre, libere 
sur parole et repris portant les 
armes contre le Gouvernement 
en vers lequel il s'etait engage 
d'honneur, ou contre les allies de 
celui-ci, perd le droit au traite- 
ment des prisonniers de guerre et 
peut etre traduit devant les tribu- 
naux. 

Article 13. 

Les individus qui suivent une 
armee sans en faire directement 
partie, tels que les correspondants 
et les reporters de journaux, les 
vivandiers, les fournisseurs, qui 
tombent au pouvoir de l'ennemi 
et que celui-ci juge utile de dete- 
nir, ont droit au traitement des 
prisonniers de guerre, a condition 
qu'ils soient munis d'une legiti- 
mation de l'autorite militaire de 
l'armee qu'ils accompagnaient. 

Article 34. 

II est constitue, des le debut des 
hostilites, dans chacun des Etats 
belligerants, et, le cas echeant, 



LAWS OF WAR ON LAND. 



177 



belligerent States, and, when nec- 
essary, in neutral countries which 
have received belligerents in their 
territory. It is the function of 
this office to reply to all inquiries 
about the prisoners. It receives 
from the various services con- 
cerned full information respecting 
internments and transfers, releases 
on parole, exchanges, escapes, ad- 
missions into hospital, deaths, as 
well as other information neces- 
sary to enable it to make out and 
keep up to date an individual re- 
turn for each prisoner of war. The 
office must state in this return the 
regimental number, name and sur- 
name, age, place of origin, rank, 
unit, wounds, date and place of 
capture, internment, wounding, 
and death, as well as any observa- 
tions of a special character. The 
individual return shall be sent to 
the Government of the other bel- 
ligerent after the conclusion of 
peace. 



It is likewise the function of the 
inquiry office to receive and collect 
all objects of personal use, valua- 
bles, letters, &c, found on the field 
of battle or left by prisoners who 
have been released on parole, or 
exchanged, or who have escaped, 
or died in hospitals or ambulances, 
and to forward them to those con- 
cerned. 

Article 15. 

Relief societies for prisoners of 
war, which are properly consti- 
tuted in accordance with the laws 
of their country and with the ob- 
ject of serving as the channel for 
55983—09 12 



dans les pays neutres qui auront 
recueilli des belligerants sur leur 
territoire, un bureau de renseigne- 
ments sur les prisonniers de guerre. 
Ce bureau, charge de repondre a 
toutes les demandes qui les con- 
cernent, recoit des divers services 
competents toutes les indications 
relatives aux internements et aux 
mutations, aux mises en liberte" 
sur parole, aux echanges, aux 
evasions, aux entrees dans les 
hopitaux, aux deces, ainsi que 
les autres renseignements neces- 
saires pour etablir et tenir a jour 
une fiche individuelle pour chaque 
prisonnier de guerre. Le bureau 
devra porter sur cette fiche le 
numero matricule, les nom et 
prenom, l'age, le lieu d'origine, 
le grade, le corps de troupe, les 
blessures, la date et le lieu de la 
capture, de l'internement, des 
blessures et de la mort, ainsi que 
toutes * les observations particu- 
lieres. La fiche individuelle sera 
remise au Gouvernement de l'au- 
tre belligerant apres la conclusion 
de la paix. 

Le bureau de renseignements 
est egalement charge de recueillir 
et de centraliser tous les objets 
d'un usage personnel, valeurs, 
lettres etc., qui seront trouves sur 
les champs de bataille ou dclaisses 
par des prisonniers libcres sur 
parole, echanges, evades ou dec6- 
des dans les hopitaux et ambu- 
lances, et de les transmettre aux 
interesses . 

Article 15. 

Les societes de secours pour les 
prisonniers de guerre, reguliere- 
ment constitutes selon la loi de 
leur pays et ayant pour objet 
d'etre les intermediaires de l'ac- 



178 



APPENDIX. 



Charitable effort shall receive from 
the belligerents, for themselves 
and their duly accredited agents 
every facility for the efficient per- 
formance of their humane task 
within the bounds imposed by 
military necessities and adminis- 
trative regulations. Agents of 
these societies may be admitted 
to the places of internment for the 
purpose of distributing relief, as 
also to the halting places of repa- 
triated prisoners, if furnished with 
a personal permit by the military 
authorities, and on giving an un- 
dertaking in writing to comply 
with all measures of order and 
police which the latter may issue. 



Article 16. 

Inquiry offices enjoy the privi- 
lege of free postage. Letters, 
money orders, and valuables, as 
well as parcels by post, intended 
for prisoners of war, or dispatched 
by them, shall be exempt from all 
postal duties in the countries of 
origin and destination, as well as 
in the countries they pass through. 

Presents and relief in" kind for 

prisoners of war shall be admitted 

"free of all import or other duties, 

:as well as of payments for carriage 

by the State railways. 



tion charitable, recevront, de la 
part des belligerants, pour elles et 
pour leurs agents dument accre- 
ditees, toute facilite, dans les 
limites tracees par les necessites 
militaires et les regies administra- 
tives, pour accomplir efficacement 
leur tache d'humanite. Les dele- 
gues de ces societes pourront etre 
admis a distribuer des sec ours 
dans les depots d'internements, 
ainsi qu'aux lieux d'etape des 
prisonniers rapatries, moyennant 
une permission personnelle deli- 
vree par l'autorite militaire. et en 
prenant 1' engagement par ecrit de 
se soumettre a toutes les mesures 
d'ordre et de police que celle-ci 
prescrirait. 

Article 16. 

Les bureaux de renseighe- 
ments jouissent de la franchise de 
port. Les lettres, mandats et 
articles d'argent, ainsi que les colis 
postaux destines aux prisonniers 
de guerre ou expedies par eux, 
seront affranchis de toutes les taxes 
postales, aussi bien dans les pays 
d'origine et de destination que 
dans les pays intermediaires. 

Les dons et secours en nature 
destines aux prisonniers de guerre 
seront admis en franchise de tous 
droits d' entree et autres, ainsi que 
des taxes de transport sur les 
chemins de fer exploited par 
l'Etat. 



Article 17. 

Officers taken prisoners shall re- 
ceive the same rate of pay as offi- 
cers of corresponding rank in the 
country where they are detained, 
the amount to be ultimately re- 
funded by their own Government. 



Article 17. 

Les officiers prisonniers rece- 
vront la solde a laquelle ont droit 
les officiers de meme grade du pays 
ou ils sont retenus, a charge de 
remboursement par leur Gouverne- 
ment. 



LAWS OF WAR ON LAND. 



179 



Article 18. 

Prisoners of war shall enjoy com- 
plete liberty in the exercise of 
their religion, including attend- 
ance at the services of whatever 
Church they may belong to, on 
the sole condition that they com- 
ply with the measures of order and 
police issued by the military au- 
thorities. 

Article 19. 

The wills of prisoners of war are 
received or drawn up in the same 
way as for soldiers of the national 
army. 

The same rules shall be observed 
regarding death certificates as 
well as for the burial of prisoners 
of war, due regard being paid to 
their grade and rank. 



Article 20. 

After the conclusion of peace, 
the repatriation of prisoners of 
war shall be carried out as quickly 
as possible. 

Chapter III. — The Sick and 
Wounded. 

Article 21. 

The obligations of belligerents 
with regard to the sick and 
wounded are governed by the 
Geneva Convention. 

Section II. — Hostilities. 

Chapter I. — Means of Injuring 
the Enemy, Sieges, and Bombard- 
ments. 

Article 22. 

The right of belligerents to 
adopt means of injuring the enemy 
is not unlimited. 



Article 18. 

Toute latitude est laissee aux 
prisonniers de guerre pour l'exer- 
cice de leur religion, y compris 
1'assistance aux offices de leur 
culte, a la seule condition de 
se conformer aux mesures d'ordre 
et de police prescrites par l'auto- 
ritemilitaire. 

Article 19. 

Les testaments des prisonniers 
de guerre sont recus ou dresses 
dans les memes conditions que 
pour les militaires de l'armee 
nationale. 

On suivra egalement les memes 
regies en ce qui concerne les 
pieces relatives a la constatation 
des deces, ainsi que pour l'inhu- 
mation des prisonniers de guerre, 
en tenant compte de leur grade et 
de leur rang. 

Article 20. 

Apres la conclusion de la paix, 
le rapatriement des prisonniers de 
guerre s'effectuera dans le plus 
bref delai possible. 

Chapitre III. — Des malades et des 
blesses. 

Article 21. 

Les obligations des belligerants 
concernant le service des malades 
et des blesses sont regies par la 
Convention de Geneve. 

Section II. — Des Hostilites. 

Chapitre I. — Des moyens de nuire 
a Fennemi, des sieges et des bom- 
bardements. 

Article 22. 

Les belligerants n'ont pas un 
droit illimite quant au choix des 
moyens de nuire a l'ennemi. 



180 



APPENDIX. 



Article 23. 

In addition to the prohibitions 
provided by special Conventions, 
it is especially forbidden — 

(a) To employ poison or poisoned 
weapons; 

(b) To kill or wound treacher- 
ously individuals belonging to 
the hostile nation or army; 

(c) To kill or wound an enemy 
who, having laid down his arms, or 
having no longer means of defence, 
has surrendered at discretion; 

(d) To declare that no quarter 
will be given; 

(e) To employ arms, projectiles, 
or material calculated to cause 
unnecessary suffering; 

(/) To make improper use of a 
flag of truce, of the national flag, 
or of the military insignia and uni- 
form of the enemy, as well as the 
distinctive badges of the Geneva 
Convention; 

(g) To destroy or seize the 
enemy's property, unless such de- 
struction or seizure be imperatively 
demanded by the necessities of 
war; 

.(h) To declare abolished, sus- 
pended, or inadmissible in a Court 
of law the rights and actions of the 
nationals of the hostile party. 

A belligerent is likewise forbid- 
den to compel the nationals of the 
hostile party to take part in the 
operations of war directed against 
their own country, even if they 
were in the belligerent's service 
before the commencement of the 



war. 



Article 24. 



Ruses of war and the employ- 
ment of measures necessary for ob- 
taining information about the 
enemy and the country are con- 
sidered permissible. 



Article 23. 

Outre les prohibitions etablies 
par des conventions speciales, il 
est notamment interdit: 

(a) d' employer du poison ou des 
armes empoisonnes; 

(b) de tuer ou de blesser par tra- 
hison des individus appartenant a 
la nation ou a l'armee ennemie; 

(c) de tuer ou de blesser un en- 
nemi qui, ayant mis bas les armes 
Ou n'ayant plus les moyens de se 
defendre, s'est rendu a discretion; 

(d) de declarer qu'il ne sera pas 
fait de quartier; 

(e) d'employer des armes, des 
projectiles ou des matieres propres 
a causer des maux superflus; 

(/) d'user indument du pavilion 
parlementaire, du pavilion na- 
tional ou des insignes militaireset 
de l'uniforme de l'ennemi, ainsi 
que des signes distinctifs de la 
Convention de Geneve; 

(g) de detruire ou de saisir des 
proprietes ennemies, sauf les cas 
ou ces destructions ou ces saisies 
seraient imperieusement comman- 
dees par les necessites de la 
guerre ; 

(h) de declarer eteints, suspen- 
dus ou non recevables en justice, 
les droits et actions des nationaux 
de la Partie adverse. 

II est egalement interdit a un 
belligerant de forcer les nationaux 
de la Partie adverse a prendre part 
aux operations de guerre dirigees 
contre leur pays, meme dans le cas 
ou ils auraient ete a son service 
avant le commencement de la 
guerre. 

Article 24. 

Les ruses de guerre et l'emploi 
des moyens necessaires pour se 
procurer des renseignements sur 
l'ennemi et sur le terrain sont con- 
sidered comme licites. 



LAWS OF WAR ON LAND. 



181 



Article 25. 

The attack or bombardment, by 
whatever means, of towns, villages, 
dwellings, or buildings which are 
undefended is prohibited. 

Article 26. 

The officer in command of an 
attacking force must, before com- 
mencing a bombardment, except 
in cases of assault, do all in his 
power to warn the authorities. 

Article 27. 

In sieges and bombardments all 
necessary steps must be taken to 
spare, as far as possible, buildings 
dedicated to religion, art, science, 
or charitable purposes, historic 
monuments, hospitals, and places 
where the sick and wounded are 
collected, provided they are not 
being used at the time for military 
purposes. 



It is- the duty of the besieged to 
indicate the presence of such 
buildings or places by distinctive 
and visible signs, which shall be 
notified to the enemy beforehand. 

Article 28. 

The pillage of a town or place, 
even when taken by assault, is 
prohibited. 

Chapter II. — Spies. 

Article 29. 

A person can only be considered 
a spy when, acting clandestinely 
or on false pretences, he obtains or 
endeavors to obtain information 
in the zone of operations of a bel- 
ligerent, with the intention of 
communicating it to the hostile 
party. 



Article 25. 

II est interdit d'attaquer ou de 
bombarder, par quelque moyen que 
ce soit, des villes, villages, habita- 
tions ou batiments qui ne sont pas 
defendus. 

Article 26. 

Le commandant des troupes as- 
saillantes, avant d'entreprendre le 
bombardement, et sauf le cas d'at- 
taque de vive force, devra faire 
tout ce qui depend de lui pour en 
avertir les autorites. 

Article 27. 

Dans les sieges et bombarde 
ments, toutes les mesures neces- 
saires doivent etre prises pour 
epargner, autant que possible, les 
edifices consacres aux cultes, aux 
arts, aux sciences et a la bienfai- 
sance, les monuments historiques, 
les hopitaux et les lieux de rassem- 
blement de malades et de blesses, a 
condition qu'ils ne soient pas em- 
ployes en meme temps a un but 
militaire. 

Le devoir des assieges est de 
designer ces edifices ou lieux de 
rassemblement par des signes vi- 
sibles speciaux qui seront notifies 
d'avance a l'assiegeant. 

Article 28. 

II est interdit de livrer au pillage 
une ville ou localite meme prise 
d'assaut. 

Chapitre II. — Des espions. 

Article 29. 

Ne peut &tre considere comme 
espion que l'individu qui, agissant 
clandestinement ou sous de faux 
pretextes, recueille ou cherche a 
recueillir des informations dans la 
zone d' operations d'un bellige- 
rant, avec l'intention de les com- 
muniquer a la Partie adverse. 



182 



APPENDIX. 



Thus, soldiers not wearing a dis- 
guise who have penetrated into the 
zone of operations of the hostile 
army, for the purpose of obtaining 
information, are not considered 
spies. Similarly, the following 
are not considered spies: Soldiers 
and civilians, carrying out their 
mission openly, intrusted with the 
delivery of despatches intended 
either for their own army or for the 
enemy's army. To this class be- 
long likewise persons sent in bal- 
loons for the purpose of carrying 
despatches and, generally, of main- 
taining communications between 
the different parts of an army or a 
territory. 

Article 30. 

A spy taken in the act shall not 
be punished without previous 
trial. 

Article 31. 

A spy who, after rejoining the 
army to which he belongs, is sub- 
sequently captured by the enemy, 
is treated as a prisoner of war, and 
incurs no responsibility for his pre- 
vious acts of espionage. 



Chapter III. — Flags of Truce. 

Article 32. 

A person is regarded as bearing a 
flag of truce who has been author- 
ized by one of the belligerents to 
enter into communication with the 
other, and who advances bearing a 
white flag. He has a right to in- 
violability, as well as the trum- 
peter, bugler or drummer, the flag- 
bearer and interpreter who may 
accompany him. 



Ainsi les militaires non deguises 
qui ont penetre dans la zone 
d'operations de l'armee ennemie, 
a l'effet de recueillir des informa- 
tions, ne sont pas consideres comme 
espions. De meme, ne sont pas 
consideres comme espions: les 
militaires et les non militaires, ac- 
complissant ouvertement leur mis- 
sion, charges de transmettre des 
depeches destinees, soit a leur 
propre armee, soit a l'armee en- 
nemie. A cette categorie ap- 
partiennent egalement les indi- 
vidus envoyes en ballon pour 
transmettre les depeches, et, en 
general, pour entretenir les com- 
munications entre les diverses par- 
ties d'une armee ou d'un territoire. 

Article 30. 

L'espion pris sur le fait ne pourra 
etre puni sans jugement prealable. 

Article 31. 

L'espion qui, ayant rejoint 
l'armee a laquelle il appartient, 
est capture" plus tard par l'ennemi, 
est traite comme prisonnier de 
guerre et n'encourt aucune re- 
sponsabilite pour ses actes d'es- 
pionnage anterieurs. 

Chaptre III. — Des parlementaires . 

Article 32. 

Est considere comme parlemen- 
taire l'individu autorise par l'un 
des belligerants a entrer en pour- 
parlers avec 1' autre et se presen- 
tant avec le drapeau blanc. II a 
droit a l'inviolabilite ainsi que le 
trompette, clairon ou tambour, le 
porte-drapeau et l'interprete qui 
l'accompagneraient. 



LAWS OF WAE ON LAND. 



183 



Article 33. 

The commander to whom a flag 
of truce is sent is not in all cases 
obliged to receive it. 

He may take all the necessary 
steps to prevent the envoy taking 
advantage of his mission to obtain 
information. 

In case of abuse, he has the right 
to detain the envoy temporarily. 

Article 34. 

The envoy loses his rights of in- 
violability if it is proved in a clear 
and incontestable manner that he 
has taken advantage of his privi- 
leged position to provoke or com- 
mit an act of treachery. 

Chapter IV. — Capitulations. 
Article 35. 

Capitulations agreed upon be- 
tween the contracting parties must 
take into account the rules of mili- 
tary honor. 

Once settled, they must be scru- 
pulously observed by both parties. 

Chapter V. — Armistices. 

Article 36. 

An armistice suspends military 
operations by mutual agreement 
between the belligerent parties. 
If its duration is not defined, the 
belligerent parties may resume op- 
erations at any time, provided 
always that the enemy is warned 
within the time agreed upon, in 
accordance with the terms of the 
armistice. 

Article 37. 

An armistice may be general or 
local. The first suspends the mili- 
tary operations of the belligerent 



Article 33. 

Le chef auquel un parlementaire 
est expedie n'est pas oblige de le 
recevoir en toutes circonstances. 

II peut prendre toutes les me- 
sures necessaires afin d'empecher 
le parlementaire de profiter de sa 
mission pour se renseigner. 

II a le droit, en cas d'abus, de re~ 
tenir temporairement le parlemen- 
taire. 

Article 34. 

Le parlementaire perd ses droits 
d'inviolabilite, s'il est prouve^ 
d'une maniere positive et irrecu- 
sable, qu'il a profite de sa position 
privilegiee pour provoquer ou 
commettre un acte de trahison. 

Chapitre IV. — Des capitulations. 
Article 35. 

Les capitulations arretees entre 
les Parties contractantes doivent 
tenir compte des regies de l'hon- 
neur militaire. 

Une f ois fixees, elles doivent etre 
scrupuleusement observees par les 
deux Parties. 

Chapitre V. — De V armistice. 

Article 36. 

L'armistice suspend les opera- 
tions de guerre par un accord 
mutuel des Parties belligerantes. 
Si la duree n'en est pas determinee, 
les Parties belligerantes peuvent 
reprendre en tout temps les opera- 
tions, pourvu toutefois que l'enne- 
mi soit averti en temps convenu, 
conformement aux conditions de 
l'armistice. 

Article 37. 

L'armistice peut etre general ou 
local. Le premier suspend partout 
les operations de guerre des Etats 



184 



APPENDIX. 



States everywhere; trie second 
only between certain fractions of 
the belligerent armies and within 
a fixed radius. 

Article 38. 

An armistice must be notified 
officially and in good time to the 
competent authorities and to the 
troops. Hostilities are suspended 
immediately after the notification, 
or on the date fixed. 

Article 39. 

• It rests with the contracting par- 
ties to settle, in the terms of the 
armistice, what communications 
may be held in the theatre of war 
with the inhabitants and between 
the inhabitants of one belligerent 
State and those of the other. 

Article 40. 

Any serious violation of the 
armistice by one of the parties 
gives the other party the right of 
denouncing it, and even, in cases 
oi urgency, of recommencing hos- 
tilities immediately. 

Article 41. 

A violation of the terms of the 
armistice by private persons acting 
on their own initiative only enti- 
tles the injured party to demand 
the punishment of the offenders 
or, if necessary, compensation for 
the losses sustained. 

Section III. — Military authority 
over the Territory of the Hostile 
State. 

Article 42. 

Territory is considered occupied 
when it is actually placed under 
the authority of the hostile army. 



belligerants; le second, seulement 
entre certaines fractions des armees 
belligerantes et dans un rayon de- 
termine. 

Article 38. 

L'armistice doit etre notifi6 offi- 
ciellement et en temps utile aux 
autorites competentes et aux 
troupes. Les hostilites sont sus- 
pendues immediatement apres la 
notification ou au terme fixe. 

Article 39. 

II depend des Parties contrac- 
tantes de fixer, dans les clauses de 
l'armistice, les rapports qui pour- 
raient avoir lieu, sur le theatre de 
la guerre, avec les populations et 
entre elles. 



Article 40. 

Toute violation grave del' armis 
tice, par l'une des Parties, donne 
a l'autre le droit de le denoncer et 
meme, encasd'urgence,de repren- 
dre immediatement les hostilites. 

Article 41. 

La violation des clauses de l'ar- 
mistice, par des particuliers agis- 
sant de leur propre initiative, 
donne droit seulement a recla- 
mer la punition des coupables 
et, s'il y a lieu, une indemnite 
pour les pertes eprouvees. 

Section III.— De Vautorite mili- 
taire sur le territoire de VEtat 
ennemi. 

Article 42. 

Un territoire est considere com- 
me occupe lorsqu'il se trouve place 
de fait sous Fautorite de l'armee 
ennemie. 



LAWS OF WAR ON LAND. 



185 



The occupation extends only to L'occupation ne s'etend qu'aux 

the territory where such authority territoires ou cette autorite est 

has been established and can be etablie et en mesure de s'exercer. 
exercised. 



Article 43. 

The authority of the legitimate 
power having in fact passed into 
the hands of the occupant, the lat- 
ter shall take all the measures in 
his power to restore, and ensure, as 
far as possible, public order and 
safety, while respecting, unless ab- 
solutely prevented, the laws in 
force in the country. 

Article 44. 

A" belligerent is forbiddento 
force the inhabitants of territory 
occupied by it to furnish informa- 
tion about the army of the other 
belligerent, or about its means of 
defence. 

Article 45. 



Article 43. 

L'autorite du pouvoir legal 
ayant passe de fait entre les 
mains de 1'occupant, celui-ci 
prendra toutes les mesures qui 
dependent de lui en vue de re- 
tab lir et d' assurer, autant qu'il 
est possible, l'ordre et la vie pu- 
blics en respectant, sauf empe- 
chement absolu, les lois en vi- 
gueur dans le pays. 

Article 44. 

II est interdit a un belligerant de 
forcer la population d'un territoire 
occupe a donner des renseigne- 
ments sur l'armee de l'autre belli- 
gerant ou sur ses moyens de 
defense. 

Article 45. 



It is forbidden to compel the H est interdit de contraindre la 

inhabitants of occupied territory population d'un territoire occupe 

to swear allegiance to the hostile a preter serment a la Puissance 

Power. ennemie. 



Article 46. 

Family honor and rights, the 
lives of persons/ and private prop- 
erty, as well as religious convic- 
tions and practice, must be 
respected. 

Private property cannot be 
confiscated. 

Article 47. 



Article 46. 

L'honneur et les droits de la 
famille, la vie des individus et la 
propriete privee, ainsi que les con- 
victions religieuses et l'exercice 
des cultes, doivent etre respectes. 

La propriete privee ne peut pas 
etre confisquee. 

Article 47. 



Pillage is formally forbidden. Le pillage est formellement in- 

terdit. 
Article 48. Article 48. 

If, in the territory occupied, the Si 1'occupant preleve, dans le 
occupant collects the taxes, dues, territoire occupe, les impots, droits 
and tolls imposed for the benefit et peages etablis au profit del' Etat, 



186 



APPENDIX. 



of the State, he shall do so, as far 
as is possible, in accordance with 
the rules of assessment and inci- 
dence in force, and shall in conse- 
quence be bound to defray the 
expenses of the administration of 
the occupied territory to the same 
extent as the legitimate Govern- 
ment was so bound. 

Article 49. 

If, in addition to the taxes men- 
tioned in the above Article, the 
occupant levies other money con- 
tributions in the occupied territory, 
this shall only be for the needs of 
the army or of the administration 
of the territory in question. 

Article 50. 

No general penalty, pecuniary 
or otherwise, shall be inflicted 
upon the population on account of 
the acts of individuals for which 
they cannot be regarded as jointly 
and severally responsible. 

Article 51. 

No contribution shall be col- 
lected except under a written or- 
der, and on the responsibility of a 
Commander-in-chief. 

The collection of the said contri- 
bution shall only be effected as far 
as possible in accordance with the 
rules of assessment and incidence 
of the taxes in force. 

For every contribution a receipt 
shall be given to the contributors. 

Article 52. 

Requisitions in kind and serv- 
ices shall not be demanded from 
municipalities or inhabitants ex- 
cept for the needs of the army of 
occupation. They shall be in pro- 
portion to the resources of the 



il le fera, autant^que T possible, 
d'apres les regies de l'assiette et de 
la repartition en vigueur, et il en 
resultera pour lui 1' obligation de 
pourvoir aux frais de 1' administra- 
tion du territoire occupe dans la 
mesure oil le Gouvernement legal 
y etait tenu. 

Article 49. 

Si, en dehors des impots vises a 
1' article precedent, 1' occupant pre- 
leve d'autres contributions en ar- 
gent dans le territoire occupe, ce 
ne pourra etre que pour les besoins 
de l'armee ou de 1' administration 
de ce territoire. 

Article 50. 

Aucune peine collective, pecu- 
niaire ou autre, ne pourra etre 
edictee contre les populations a 
raison de faits individuels dont 
elles ne pourraient etre considerees 
comme solidairement responsables. 

Article 51. 

Aucune contribution ne sera 
percue qu'en vertu d'un ordre 
ecrit et sous la responsabilite d'un 
general en chef. 

II ne sera procede, autant que 
possible, a cette perception que 
d'apres les regies de l'assiette et 
de la repartition des impots en 
vigueur. 

Pour toute contribution, un recu 
sera delivre aux contribuables. 

Article 52. 

Des requisitions en nature et des 
services ne pourront etre reclames 
des communes ou des habitants, 
que pour les besoins de l'arm6e 
d' occupation. lis seront en rap- 
port avec les ressources du pays 



LAWS OF WAK ON LAND. 



187 



country, and of such a nature as 
not to involve the inhabitants in 
the obligation of taking part in 
military operations against their 
own country. 

Such requisitions and services 
shall only be demanded on the au- 
thority of the commander in the 
locality occupied. 

Contributions in kind shall as 
far as possible be paid for in cash; 
if not, a receipt shall be given and 
the payment of the amount due 
shall be made as soon as possible. 

Article 53. 

An army of occupation can only 
take possession of cash, funds, and 
realizable securities which are 
strictly the property of the State, 
depots of arms, means of transport, 
stores and supplies, and, generally, 
all movable property belonging to 
the State which may be used for 
military operations. 

All appliances, whether on land, 
at sea, or in the air, adapted for the 
transmission of news, or for the 
transport of persons or things, ex- 
clusive of cases governed by naval 
law, depots of arms, and, gener- 
ally, all kinds of ammunition of 
war, may be seized, even if they 
belong to private individuals, but 
must be restored and compensa- 
tion fixed when peace is made. 



Article 54. 

Submarine cables connecting an 
occupied territory with a neutral 
territory shall not be seized or de- 
stroyed except in the case of abso- 
lute necessity. They must like- 
wise be restored and compensation 
fixed when peace is made. 



et de telle nature qu'ils n'impli- 
quent pas pour les populations 
l'obligation de prendre part aux 
operations de la guerre contre leur 
patrie. 

Ces requisitions et ces services 
ne seront reclames qu'avec l'au- 
torisation du commandant dans^la 
localite occupee. 

Les prestations en nature seront, 
autant que possible, payees au 
comptant; sinon, elles seront con- 
statees par des recus, et le paie- 
ment des sommes dues sera effec- 
tue le plus tot possible. 

Article 53. 

L'armee qui occupe un terri- 
toire ne pourra saisir que le nume- 
raire, les fonds et les valeurs 
exigibles appartenant en propre a 
l'Etat, les depots d'armes, moyens 
de transport, magasins et appro- 
visionnements et, en general, toute 
propriete mobiliere de l'Etat de 
nature a servir aux operations de 
la guerre. 

Tous les moyens affectes sur 
terre, sur mer et dans les airs a la 
transmission des nouvelles, au 
transport des personnes ou des 
choses, en dehors des cas regis 
par le droit maritime, les depots 
d'armes et, en general, toute 
espece de munitions de guerre, 
peuvent §tre saisis, meme s'ils 
appartiennent a des personnes 
privees, mais devront etre resti- 
tues et les indemnites seront 
reglees a la paix. 

Article 54. 

Les cables sous-marins reliant 
un territoire occupe a un territoire 
neutre ne seront saisis ou detruits 
que dans le cas d'une necessite 
absolue. lis devront egalement 
etre restitues et les indemnites 
seront reglees a la paix. 



188 



APPENDIX. 



Article 55. 

The occupying State shall be re- 
garded only as administrator and 
usufructuary of public buildings, 
real estate, forests, and agricultural 
estates belonging to the hostile 
State, and situated in the occu- 
pied country. It must safeguard 
the capital of these properties, and 
administer them in accordance 
with the rules of usufruct. 

Article 56. 

The property of municipalities, 
that of institutions dedicated to 
religion, charity and education, 
the arts and sciences, even when 
State property, shall be treated as 
private property. 

All seizure of, destruction or wil- 
ful damage done to institutions of 
this character, historic monuments, 
works of art and science, is forbid- 
den, and should be made the sub- 
ject of legal proceedings. 



Article 55. 

L'Etat ' occupant ne se^consi- 
derera que comme administrateur 
et usufruitier des edifices publics, 
immeubles, forets et exploitations 
agricoles appartenant a l'Etat 
ennemi et se trouvant dans le 
pays occupe. II devra sauve- 
garder le fonds de ces proprietes 
et les administrer conformement 
aux regies de l'usufruit. 

Article 56. 

Les biens des communes, ceux 
des etablissements consacres aux 
cultes, a la charite et a l'instruc- 
tion, aux arts et aux sciences, 
meme appartenant a, l'Etat, seront 
traites comme la propriete privee. 

Toute saisie, destruction ou 
degradation intentionnelle de 
semblables etablissements, de 
monuments historiques, d'oeuvres 
d'art et de science, est interdite 
et doit etre poursuivie. 



CONVENTION RESPECTING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES 
OF NEUTRAL POWERS AND PERSONS IN CASE OF 
WAR ON LAND. 



Signed by the United States Delegates. Ratification advised by the Senate, 

March 10, 1908. 

The Contracting Powers (see Final Act), with a view to laying down 
more clearly the rights and duties of neutral Powers in case of war on 
land and regulating the position of the belligerents who have taken 
refuge in neutral territory; 

Being likewise desirous of defining the meaning of the term 
"neutral," pending the possibility of settling, in its entirety, the 
position of neutral individuals in their relations with the belligerents; 

Have resolved to conclude a Convention to this effect, and have, 
in consequence, appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries: 

[For names of plenipotentiaries, see Final Act.] 

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and 
due form, have agreed upon the following provisions: — 



NEUTRALS IN WAR ON LAND. 



189 



Chapter I .— The Rights and Duties Chapitre I. — Des Droits et des De- 

qf Neutral Powers. voirs des Puissances neutres. 

Article 1. Article Premier. 

The territory of neutral Powers Le territoipe des Puissances neu- 

is inviolable. tres est inviolable. 



Article 2. 

Belligerents are forbidden to 
move troops or convoys of either 
munitions of war or supplies across 
the territory of a neutral Power. 



Article 3. 

Belligerents are likewise forbid- 
den to: 

(a) Erect on the territory of a 
neutral Power a wireless teleg- 
raphy station or other apparatus 
for the purpose of communicating 
with belligerent forces on land or 
sea; 

(6) Use any installation of this 
kind established by them before 
the war on the territory of a neu- 
oral Power for purely military pur- 
poses, and which has not been 
opened for the service of public 
messages. 

Article 4. 



Article 2. 

II est interdit aux belligerants 
de faire passer a travers le terri- 
toire d'une Puissance neutre des 
troupes ou des convois, soit de 
munition, soit d'approvisionne- 
ments. 

Article 3. 

II est egalement interdit aux 
belligerants: 

(a) d 'installer sur le territoire 
d'une Puissance neutre une sta- 
tion radiotelegraphique ou tout 
appareil destine a servir comme 
moyen de communication avec 
des forces belligerantes sur terre 
ou sur mer; 

(6) d'utiliser toute installation 
de ce genre etablie par eux avant 
la guerre sur le territoire de la 
Puissance neutre dans un but ex- 
clusivement militaire, et qui n'a 
pas ete ouverte au service de la 
correspondance publique. 

Article 4. 



Corps of combatants cannot be Des corps de combattants ne 
formed nor recruiting agencies peuvent etre formes, ni des 
opened on the territory of a neu- bureaux d'enrolement ouverts, 
tral Power to assist the belligerents, sur le territoire d'une Puissance 

neutre au profit des belligerants. 



Article 5. 

A neutral Power must not allow 
any of the acts referred to in Ar- 
ticles 2 to 4 to occur on its terri- 
tory. 

It is not called upon to punish 
acts in violation of its neutrality 
unless the said acts have been 
committed on its own territory. 



Article 5. 

Une Puissance neutre ne doit 
tolerer sur son territoire aucun des 
actes vises par les articles 2 a 4. 

Elle n'est tenue de punir des 
actes contraires a la neutralite 
que si ces actes ont ete" commis sur 
son propre territoire. 



190 



APPENDIX. 



Article 6. 

The responsibility of a neutral 
Power is not engaged by the fact 
of persons crossing the frontier 
separately to offer their services 
to one of the belligerents. 

Article 7. 

A neutral Power is not called 
upon to prevent the export or 
transport, on behalf of one or 
other of the belligerents, of arms, 
munitions of war, or, in general, of 
anything which can be of use to an 
army or a fleet. 

Article 8. 

A neutral Power is not called 
upon to forbid or restrict the use 
on behalf of the belligerents of 
telegraph or telephone cables or 
of wireless telegraphy apparatus 
belonging to it or to Companies or 
private individuals. 

Article 9. 

Every measure of restriction or 
prohibition taken by a neutral 
Power in regard to the matters 
referred to in Articles 7 and 8 
must be impartially applied by 
it to both belligerents. 

A neutral Power must see to the 
same obligation being observed by 
Companies or private individuals 
owning telegraph or telephone 
cables or wireless telegraphy ap- 
paratus. 

Article 10. 

The fact of a neutral Power re- 
sisting, even by force, attempts to 
violate its neutrality can not be 
regarded as a hostile act. 



Article 6. 

La responsabilite d'une Puis- 
sance neutre n'est pas engagee par 
le fait que des individus passent 
isolement la frontiere pour se 
mettre au service de l'un des bel- 
ligerants. 

Article 7. 

Une Puissance neutre n'est pas 
tenue d'empecher 1' exportation ou 
le transit, pour le compte de l'un 
ou de 1' autre des belligerants, 
d'armes, de munitions, et, en 
general, de tout ce qui peut §tre 
utile a, une armee ou a une flotte. 

Article 8. 

Une Puissance neutre n'est pas 
tenue d'interdire ou de restreindre 
1' usage, pour les belligerants, des 
cables telegraphiques ou tele- 
phoniques, ainsi que des appareils 
de telegraphie sans fil, qui sont, 
soit sa propriete, soit celle de 
compagnies ou de particuliers. 

Article 9. 

Toutes mesures restrictives ou 
prohibitives prises par une Puis- 
sance neutre a l'egard des matieres 
visees par les articles 7 et 8 devront 
etre uniformement appliquees par 
elle aux belligerants. 

La Puissance neutre veillera au 
respect de la meme obligation par 
les compagnies ou particuliers 
proprietaries de cables telegraphi- 
ques ou telephoniques ou d'appa- 
reils de telegraphie sans fil. 

Article 10. 

Ne peut &tre considere comme 
un acte hostile le fait, par une 
Puissance neutre, de repousser, 
meme par la force, les atteintes a 
sa neutrality . 



NEUTRALS IN WAR ON LAND. 



191 



Chapter II. — Belligerents Interned 
and Wounded tended in Neutral 
Territory. 

Article 11. 

A neutral Power which receives 
on its territory troops belonging to 
the belligerent armies shall intern 
them, as far as possible, at a dis- 
tance from the theatre of war. 

It may keep them in camps and 
even confine them in fortresses or 
in places set apart for this purpose. 

It shall decide whether officers 
can be left at liberty on giving 
their parole not to leave the neu- 
tral territory without permission. 

Article 12. 

In the absence of a special Con- 
vention to the contrary, the neu- 
tral Power shall supply the in- 
terned with the food, clothing, and 
relief required by humanity. 

At the conclusion of peace the 
expenses caused by the intern- 
ment shall be made s:ood. 



Article 13. 



\, &£&:«' 



A neutral Power which receives 
escaped prisoners of war shall 
leave them at liberty. If it allows 
them to remain in its territory it 
may assign them a place of resi- 
dence. 

The same rule applies to prison- 
ers of war brought by troops taking 
refuge in the territory of a neutral 
Power. 

Article 14. 

A neutral Power may authorize 
the passage into its territory of the 
sick and wounded belonging to 



Chapitre II. — Des belligerants in- 
ternes et des blesses soignes chez 
les neutres. 

Article 11. 

La Puissance neutre qui recoit 
sur son territoire des troupes ap- 
partenant aux armees bellige- 
rantes, les internera, autant que 
possible, loin du theatre de la 
guerre. 

Elle pourra les garder dans des 
camps, et m6me les enfermer dans 
des forteresses ou dans des lieux 
appropries a cet effet. 

Elle decidera si les officiers peu- 
vent etre laisses libres en prenant 
1' engagement sur parole de ne pas 
quitter le territoire neutre sans 
autorisation. 

Article 12. 

A defaut de convention speciale, 
la Puissance neutre fournira aux 
internes les vivres, les habille- 
ments et les secours commandes 
par l'humanite. 

Bonification sera faite, a la paix, 
des frais occasionnes par l'interne- 
ment. 

Article 13. 

La Puissance neutre qui recoit 
des prisonniers de guerre evades 
les laissera en liberte. Si elle 
tolere leur sejour sur son territoire, 
elle peut' leur assigner une resi- 
dence. 

La meme disposition est applica- 
ble aux prisonniers de guerre ame- 
nes par des troupes se refugiant 
sur le territoire de la Puissance 
neutre. 

Article 14. 

Une Puissance neutre pourra 
autoriser le passage sur son terri- 
toire des blesses ou malades ap- 



192 



APPENDIX. 



the belligerent armies, on condi- 
tion that the trains bringing them 
shall carry neither war personnel 
nor material. In such a case, the 
neutral Power is bound to take 
whatever measures of safety and 
control are necessary for the pur- 
pose. 

The sick or wounded brought 
under these conditions into neu- 
tral territory by one of the bellig- 
erents, and belonging to the hostile 
party, must be guarded by the 
neutral Power so as to ensure their 
not taking part again in the mili- 
tary operations. The same duty 
shall devolve on the neutral 
State with regard to wounded or 
sick of the other army who may be 
committed to its care. 

Article 15. 

The Geneva Convention applies 
to sick and wounded interned in 
neutral territory. 

Chapter III. — Neutral Persons. 

Article 16. 

The nationals of a State which 
is not taking part in the war are 
considered as neutrals. 

Article 17. . 

A neutral cannot avail himself 
of his neutrality: 

(a) If he commits hostile acts 
against a belligerent; 

(6) If he commits acts in favor 
of a belligerent, particularly if he 
voluntarily enlists in the ranks of 
the armed force of one of the 
parties. 

In such a case, the neutral shall 
not be more severely treated by 
the belligerent as against whom 
he has abandoned his neutrality 



partenant aux armees belligeran- 
tes, sous la reserve que les trains 
qui les ameneront ne transporte- 
ront ni personnel, ni materiel de 
guerre. En pareil cas, la Puis- 
sance neutre est tenue de prendre 
les mesures de surete et de controle 
necessaires a cet effet. 

Les blesses ou malades amenes 
dans ces conditions sur le terri- 
toire neutre par un des bellig6- 
rants, et qui appartiendraient a la 
parti e adverse, devront §tre gardes 
par la Puissance neutre de maniere 
qu'ils ne puissent de nouveau 
prendre part aux operations de la 
guerre. Cette Puissance aura les 
memes devoirs quant aux blesses 
ou malades de 1' autre armee qui 
lui seraient confies. 

Article 15. 

La Convention de Geneve s'ap- 
plique aux malades et aux blesses 
internes sur territoire neutre. 

Chapitre III. — Des ■personnes 
neutres. 

Article 16. 

Sont considered comme neutres 
les nationaux d'un Etat qui ne 
prend pas part a la guerre. 

Article 17. 

Un neutre ne peut se prevaloir 
de sa neutralite : 

(a) s'il commet des actes hos- 
tiles contre un belligerant; 

(6) s'il commet des actes^en 
faveur d'un belligerant, notam- 
ment s'il prend volontairement du 
service dans les rangs de la force 
armee de l'une des Parties. 

En pareil cas, le neutre ne sera 
pas traite plus rigoureusement par 
le belligerant contre lequel il s'est 
departi de la neutralite que ne 



NEUTRALS IN WAR ON LAND. 



193 



than a national of the other bellig- 
erent State could be for the same 
act. 

Article 18. 

The following acts shall not be 
considered as committed in favor 
of one belligerent in the sense of 
Article 17, letter (6): 

(a) Supplies furnished or loans 
made to one of the belligerents, 
provided that the person who 
furnishes the supplies or who 
makes the loans lives neither in 
the territory of the other party nor 
in the territory occupied by him, 
and that the supplies do not come 
from these territories ; 

(6) Services rendered in mat- 
ters of police or civil administra- 
tion. 

Chapter IV. — Railway Material. 

Article 19. 

Railway material coming from 
the territory of neutral Powers, 
whether it be the property of the 
said Powers or of Companies or 
private persons, and recognizable 
as such, shall not be requisitioned 
or utilized by a belligerent except 
where and to the extent that it is 
absolutely necessary. It shall be 
sent back as soon as possible to the 
country of origin. 

A neutral Power may likewise, 

in case of necessity, retain and 

. utilize to an equal extent material 

coming from the territory of the 

belligerent Power. 

Compensation shall be paid by 
one party or the other in propor- 
tion to the material used, and to 
the period of usage. 

55983—09 13 



pourrait l'etre, a raison du meme 
fait, un national de l'autre Etat 
belligerant. 

Article 18. 

Ne seront pas considered comme 
actes commis en faveur d'un des 
belligerants, dans le sens de Par- 
ticle 17, lettre (6); 

(a) les fournitures faites ou les 
emprunts consentis a Pun des 
belligerants, pourvu que le fournis- 
seur ou le preteur n'habite ni le 
territoire de l'autre Partie, ni le 
territoire occupe par elle, et que 
les fournitures ne proviennent pas 
de ces territoires; 

(&) les services rendus en' ma- 
tiere de police ou d' administra- 
tion civile. 

Chapitre IV. — Du materiel des 
chemins defer. 

Article 19. 

Le materiel des chemins de fer 
provenant du territoire de Puis- 
sances neutres, qu'il appartienne 
a ces Puissances ou a des societ^s 
ou personnes privees, et recon- 
naissable comme tel, ne pourra 
etre requisitionne et utilise par 
un belligerant que dans le cas et 
la mesure ou l'exige une impe- 
rieuse necessite. II sera renvoy^ 
aussitot que possible dans le pays 
d'origine. 

La Puissance neutre pourra de 
meme, en cas de necessite, retenir 
et utiliser, jusqu'a due concur- 
rence, le materiel provenant du 
territoire de la Puissance belli- 
gerante. 

Une indemnite sera payee de 
part et d'autre, en proportion du 
materiel utilise et de la duree de 
1' utilisation. 



194 APPENDIX. 

Chapter V. — Final Provisions. Chapitre V. — Dispositions finales. 

Article 20. Article 20. 

The provisions of the present Les dispositions de la presente 
Convention do not apply except Convention ne sont applicables 
between Contracting Powers, and qu'entre les Puissances contrac- 
then only if all the belligerents tantes et seulement si les belli- 
are parties to the Convention. gerants sont tous parties a la 

Convention. 

(Five articles follow, Nos. 21 to 25, similar to Articles 3 to 7 of the 
Convention for the Recovery of Contract Debts.) 



CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE LAYING OF AUTO- 
MATIC SUBMARINE CONTACT MINES. 

Signed by the United States Delegates. Ratification advised by the Senate, 

March 10, 1908. 

The Contracting Powers (see Final Act) inspired by the principle of 
the freedom of sea routes, the common highways of all nations; 

Seeing that, although the existing position of affairs makes it impos- 
sible to forbid the employment of automatic submarine contact mines, 
it is nevertheless desirable to restrict and regulate their employment 
in order to mitigate the severity of war and to ensure, as far as possible, 
to peaceful navigation the security to which it is entitled, despite the 
existence of war; 

Until such time as it is found possible to formulate rules on the sub- 
ject which shall ensure to the interests involved all the guarantees 
desirable; 

Have resolved to conclude a Convention for this purpose, and have 
appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries: 
[For names of Plenipotentiaries, see Final Act.] 

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and 
due form, have agreed upon the following provisions: 

Article 1. Article Premier. 

It is forbidden: II est interdit: 

1. To lay unanchored automatic 1°. de placer des mines auto- 
contact mines, except when they matiques de contact non amarrees, 
are so constructed as to become a moins qu'elles ne soient con- 
harmless one hour at most afterthe struites de maniere a devenir in- 
person who laid them ceases to offensives une heure au maximum 
control them; apres que celui qui les a placees en 

aura perdu le controle; 



SUBMARINE CONTACT MINES. 



2. To lay anchored automatic 
contact mines which do not be- 
come harmless as soon as they have 
broken loose from their moorings; 

3. To use torpedoes which do 
not become harmless when they 
have missed their mark. 

Article 2. 

It is forbidden to lay automatic 
contact mines off the coast .and 
ports of the enemy, with the sole 
object of intercepting commercial 
shipping. 

Article 3. 

When anchored automatic con- 
tact mines are employed, every 
possible precaution must be taken 
for the security of peaceful ship- 
ping. 

The belligerents undertake to 
do their utmost to render these 
mines harmless within a limited 
time, and, should they cease to be 
under surveillance, to notify the 
danger zones as soon as military 
exigencies permit, by a notice ad- 
dressed to ship owners, which 
must also be communicated to the 
Governments through the diplo- 
matic channel. 



Article 4. 

Neutral Powers which lay auto- 
matic contact mines off their coasts 
must observe the same rules and 
take the same precautions as are 
imposed on belligerents. 



The neutral Power must in- 
form ship-owners, by a notice is- 
sued in advance, where automatic 



195 

2°. de placer des mines auto- 
matiques de contact amarrees, 
qui ne deviennent pas inoffensives 
des qu'elles auront rompu leurs 
amarres; 

3°. d'employer des torpilles, 
qui ne deviennent pas inoffensives 
lorsqu'elles auront manque leur 
but. 

Article 2. 

II est interdit de placer des 
mines automatiques de contact 
devant les cotes et les ports de 
l'adversaire, dans le seul but 
d'intercepter la navigation de 
commerce. 

Article 3. 

Lorsque les mines automatiques 
de contact amarrees sont emplo- 
yees, toutes les precautions possi- 
bles doivent etre prises pour la 
securite de la navigation pacifique. 

Les beligerants s'engagent a 
pourvoir, dans la mesure du possi- 
ble, a ce que ces mines deviennent 
inoffensives apres un laps de temps 
limite, et, dans le cas ou elles ces- 
seraient d'etre surveillees, a si- 
gnaler les regions dangereuses, 
aussitot que les exigences mili- 
taires le permettront, par un avis 
a la navigation, qui devra etre aussi 
communique aux Gouvernements 
par la voie diplomatique. 

Article 4. 

Toute Puissance neutre qui 
place des mines automatiques de 
contact devant ses cotes, doit ob- 
server les memes regies et pren- 
dre les memes precautions que 
celles qui sont imposees aux belli- 
gerants. 

La Puissance neutre doit faire 
connaitre a la navigation, par un 
avis prealable, les regions ou se- 



196 



APPENDIX. 



contact mines have been laid. 
This notice must be communi- 
cated at once to the Governments 
through the diplomatic channel. 

Article 5. 

At the close of the war, the Con- 
tracting Powers undertake to do 
their utmost to remove the mines 
which they had laid, each Power 
removing its own mines. 

As regards anchored automatic 
contact mines laid by one of the 
belligerents off the coast of the 
other, their position must be 
notified to the other party by the 
Power which laid them, and each 
Power must proceed with the least 
possible delay to remove the mines 
in its own waters. 

Article 6. 

The Contracting Powers which 
do not at present own perfected 
mines of the pattern contemplated 
in the present Convention, and 
which, consequently, could not 
at present carry out the rules laid 
down in Articles 1 and 3, under- 
take to convert the materiel of their 
mines as soon as possible, so as to 
bring it into conformity with the 
foregoing requirements. 

Article 7. 



ront mouillees des mines auto- 
matiques de contact. Cet avis 
devra etre communique d'urgence 
aux Gouvernements par voie di- 
plomatique. 

Article 5. 

A la fin de la guerre, les Puis- 
sances contractantes s'engagent a 
faire tout ce qui depend d'elles 
pour enlever, chacune de son cote, 
les mines qu'elles ont placees. 

Quant aux mines automatiques 
de contact amarrees que l'un des 
belligerants aurait posees le long 
des cotes de l'autre, Pemplace- 
ment en sera notifie a lautre partie 
par la Puissance qui les a posees 
et chaque Puissance devra pro- 
ceder dans le plus bref delai a 
1' enlevement des mines qui se 
trouvent dans ses eaux. 

Article 6. 

Les Puissances contractantes, 
qui ne disposent pas encore de 
mines perfectionnees telles qu'elles 
sont prevues dans la presente 
Convention, et qui, par conse- 
quent, ne sauraient actuellement 
se conformer aux regies etablies 
dans les articles 1 et 3, s'engagent a 
transformer, aussitot que possible, 
leur material de mines, afin qu'il 
reponde aux prescriptions susmen- 
tionnees. 

Article 7. 



The provisions of the present Les dispositions de la presente 



Convention do not apply except 
between Contracting Powers, and 
then only if all the belligerents 
are parties to the Convention. 



Convention ne sont applicables 
qu'entre les Puissances contrac- 
tantes et seulement si les bellige- 
rants sont tous parties a la Conven- 



tion. 



(Three articles follow, Nos. 8 to 10, similar to Articles 3 to 5 of the 
Convention for the Recovery of Contract Debts.) 



SUBMAKINE CONTACT MINES. 



197 



Article 11. 

The present Convention shall 
remain in force for seven years, 
dating from the sixtieth day after 
the date of the first deposit of rati- 
fications. 

Unless denounced, it shall con- 
tinue in force after the expiration 
of this period. 

The denunciation shall be noti- 
fied in writing to the Netherlands 
Government, which shall at once 
communicate a duly certified copy 
of the notification to all the Pow- 
ers, informing them of the date on 
which it was receiveds. 

The denunciation shall only 
have effect in regard to the notify- 
ing Power, and six months after 
the notification has reached the 
Netherlands Government. 



Article 12. 

The Contracting Powers under- 
take to reopen the question of the 
employment of automatic contact 
mines six months before the expi- 
ration of the period contemplated 
in the first paragraph of the preced- 
ing Article, in the event of the 
question not having been already 
reopened and settled by the Third 
Peace Conference. 

If the Contracting Powers con- 
clude a fresh Convention relative 
to the employment of mines, the 
present Convention shall cease to 
be applicable from the moment it 

comes into force. 

* * •* -x- 



Article 11. 

La presente Convention aura 
une duree de sept ans a partir du 
soixantieme jour apres la date du 
premier depot de ratifications. 

Sauf denonciation, elle conti- 
nuera d'etre en vigueur apres 
1' expiration de ce delai. 

La denonciation sera notifiee 
par ecrit au Gouvernement des 
Pays-Bas qui communiquera im- 
mediatement copie certifiee con- 
forme de la notification a toutes 
les Puissances, en leur faisant 
savoir la date a laquelle il l'a recue. 

La denonciation ne produira ses 
effets qu'a l'egard de la Puis- 
sance qui l'aura notifiee et six 
mois apres que la notification en 
sera parvenue au Gouvernement 
des Pays-Bas. 

Article 12. 

Les Puissances contractantes 
s'engagent a reprendre la question 
de l'emploi des mines automa- 
tiques de contact six mois avant 
1' expiration du terme : -prevu par 
l'alinea premier de Particle pre- 
cedent, au cas ou elle n'aurait pas 
ete reprise et resolue a une date 
anterieure par la troisieme Con- 
ference de la Paix. 

Si les Puissances contractantes 
concluent une nouvelle Conven- 
tion relative a l'emploi des mines, 
des son entree en vigueur, la pre- 
sente Convention cessera d'etre 
applicable. 



(The final article, No. 13, is similar to Article 7 of the Convention 
for the Recovery of Contract Debts.) 



198 



APPENDIX. 



CONVENTION RESPECTING BOMBARDMENT BY NAVAL 
FORCES IN TIME OF WAR. 

Signed by the United States Delegates. Ratification advised by the Senate, 

March 10, 1908. 

The Contracting Powers (see Final Act) animated by the desire to 
realize the wish expressed by the First Peace Conference respecting 
the bombardment by naval forces of undefended ports, towns, and 
villages ; 

Whereas it is expedient that bombardments by naval forces should 
be subject to rules of general application which would safeguard the 
rights of the inhabitants and assure the preservation of the more import- 
ant buildings, by applying as far as possible to this operation of war 
the principles of the Regulation of 1899 respecting the Laws and Cus- 
toms of Land War; 

Actuated, accordingly, by the desire to serve the interests of 
humanity and to diminish the severity and disasters of war; 

Have resolved to conclude a Convention to this effect, and have, 
for this purpose, appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries: 

[For names of Plenipotentiaries, see Final Act.] 

Who, after depositing their full powers, found in good and due 
form, have agreed upon the following provisions: 



Chapter I. — The Bombardment of 
Undefended Ports, Towns, Vil- 
lages, Dwellings, or Buildings. 

Article 1. 

The bombardment by naval 
forces of undefended ports, towns, 
villages, dwellings, or buildings is 
forbidden. 

A place cannot be bombarded 
solely because automatic sub- 
marine contact mines are anchored 
off the harbor. 



Article 2. 

Military works, military or naval 
establishments, depots of arms or 
war materiel, workshops or plant 
which could be utilized for the 
needs of the hostile fleet or army, 
and the ships of war in the har- 
bor, are not, however, included 
in this prohibition. The com- 



Chapitre I.—Du bombardement 
des ports, villes, villages, habita- 
tions, ou batiments non defendus. 

Article Premier. 

II est interdit de bombarder, par 
des forces navales, des ports, villes, 
villages, habitations ou batiments, 
qui ne sont pas defendus. 

Une localite ne peut pas etre 
bombardee a raison du seul fait 
que, devant son port, se trouvent 
mouillees des mines sous-marines 
automatiques de contact. 

Article 2. 

Toutefois, ne sont pas compris 
dans cette interdiction les ouvra- 
ges militaires, etablissements mili- 
taires ou navals, depots d'armes ou 
de materiel de guerre, ateliers et 
installations propres a etre utilises 
pour les besoins de la flotte ou de 
l'armee ennemie, et les na vires de 



BOMBARDMENT BY NAVAL FORCES. 



199 



mander of a naval force may de- 
stroy them with artillery, after a 
summons followed by a reason- 
able time of waiting, if all other 
means are impossible, and when 
the local authorities have not 
themselves destroyed them within 
the time fixed. 

He incurs no responsibility for 
any unavoidable damage which 
may be caused by a bombard- 
ment under such circumstances. 

If for military reasons immediate 
action is necessary, and no delay 
can be allowed the enemy, it is 
understood that the prohibition 
to bombard the undefended town 
holds good, as in the case given in 
paragraph 1, and that the com- 
mander shall take all due measures 
in order that the town may suffer 
as little harm as possible. 

Article 3. 

After due notice has been given, 
the bombardment of undefended 
ports, towns, villages, dwellings, 
or buildings may be commenced, 
if the local authorities, after a 
formal summons has been made 
to them, decline to comply with 
requisitions for provisions or sup- 
plies necessary for the immediate 
use of the naval force before the 
place in question. 

These requisitions shall be in 
proportion to the resources of the 
place. They shall only be de- 
manded in the name of the com- 
mander of the said naval force, 
and they shall, as far as possible, 
be paid for in cash; if not, they 
shall be evidenced -by receipts. 



guerre se trouvant dans le port. 
Le commandant d'une force navale 
pourra, apres sommation avec delai 
raisonnable, les detruire par le 
canon, si tout autre moyen est 
impossible et lorsque les autorites 
locales n'auront pas procede a 
cette destruction dans le delai 
fixe. 

II n'encourt aucune responsa- 
bilite dans ce cas pour les domma- 
ges involontaires, qui pourraient 
etre occasionnes par le bombarde- 
ment. 

Si des necessites militaires, 
exigeant une action immediate, 
ne permettaient pas d'accorder de 
delai, il reste entendu que 1' inter- 
diction de bombarder la ville non 
defendue subsiste comme dans le 
cas enonce dans l'alinea l er et que 
le commandant prendra toutes les 
dispositions voulues pour qu'il 
en resulte pour cette ville le moins 
d'inconvenients possible. 

Article 3. 

II peut, apres notification ex- 
presse, etre procede au bombarde- 
ment des ports, villes, villages, 
habitations ou batiments non 
defendus, si les autorites locales, 
mises en demeure par une somma- 
tion formelle, refusent d'obtempe- 
rer a des requisitions de vivres ou 
d'approvisionnements necessaires 
au besoin present de la force navale 
qui se trouve devant la localite. 

Ces requisitions seront en rap- 
port avec les ressources de la 
localite. Elles ne seront recla- 
mees qu'avec l'autorisation du 
commandant de ladite force navale 
et elles seront, autant que possible, 
payees au comptant; sin on elles 
seront constatees par des recus. 



200 



APPENDIX. 



Article 4. 

Undefended ports, towns, vil- 
lages, dwellings, or buildings may 
not be bombarded on account of 
failure to pay money contribu- 
tions. 

Chapter II. — General Provisions. 



Article 5. 

In bombardments by naval 
forces all the necessary measures 
must be taken by the commander 
to spare as far as possible sacred 
edifices, buildings used for artistic, 
scientific, or charitable purposes, 
historic monuments, hospitals, and 
places where the sick or wounded 
are collected, on condition that 
they are not used at the same 
time for military purposes. gjfj 

It is the duty of the inhabitants 
to indicate such monuments, edi- 
fices, or places by visible signs, 
which shall consist of large stiff 
rectangular panels divided diago- 
nally into two colored triangular 
portions, the upper portion black, 
the lower portion white. 

Article 6. 

If the military situation per- 
mits, the commander of the at- 
tacking naval force, before com- 
mencing the bombardment, must 
do his utmost to warn the authori- 
ties. 



Article 7. 

A town or place, even when 
taken by storm, may not be 
pillaged. 



Article 4. 

Est interdit le bombardement, 
pour le non paiement des contri- 
butions en argent, des ports, villes, 
villages, habitations ou batiments, 
non defendus. 

Chapitre II. — Dispositions gene- 
rales. 

Article 5. 

Dans le bombardement par des 
forces navales, toutes les mesures 
necessaires doivent etre prises par 
le commandant pour epargner, 
autant que possible, les edifices 
consacres aux cultes, aux arts, aux 
sciences et a la bienfaisance, les 
monuments historiques, les hopi- 
taux et les lieux de rassemblement 
de malades ou de blesses, a condi- 
tion qu'ils ne soient pas employes 
en meme temps a un but militaire. 

Le devoir des habitants est de 
designer ces monuments, ces 
edifices ou lieux de rassemble- 
ment, par des signes visibles, qui 
consisteront en grands panneaux 
rectangulaires rigides, partages, 
suivant une des diagonales, en 
deux triangles de couleur, noire en 
haut et blanche en bas. 

Article 6. 

Sauf le cas ou les exigences mili- 
taires ne le permettraient pas, le 
commandant de la force navale 
assaillante doit, avant d'entre- 
prendre le bombardement, faire 
tout ce qui depend de lui pour 
avertir les autorites. 

Article 7. 

II est interdit de livrer au pillage 
une ville ou localite meme prise 
d'assaut. 



GENEVA CONVENTION IN NAVAL WAR. 



201 



Chapter III. — Final Provisions. 



Article 8. 

The provisions of the present 
Convention do not apply except 
between Contracting Powers, and 
then only if all the belligerents 
are parties to the Convention. 



Chapitre III.— Dispositions 
finales. 

Article 8. 

Les dispositions de la presente 
Convention ne sont applicables 
qu'entre les Puissances contrac- 
tantes et seulement si les bellig6- 
rants sont tous parties a la Conven- 
tion. 



(Five articles follow, Nos. 9 to 13, similar to Articles 3 to 7 of the 
Convention for the Recovery of Contract Debts.) 



CONVENTION FOR THE ADAPTATION TO NAVAL WAR 
OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION. 

Signed by the United States delegates. Ratification advised by the Senate 

March 10, 1908. 

The Contracting Powers (see Final Act) animated alike by the desire 
to diminish, as far as depends on them, the inevitable evils of war; 

And wishing with this object to adapt to maritime warfare the prin- 
ciples of the Geneva Convention of the 6th July, 1906; 

Have resolved to conclude a Convention for the purpose of revising 
the Convention of the 29th July, 1899, relative to this question, and 
have appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries: 

[For names of Plenipotentiaries see Final Act.] 

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and 
due form, have agreed upon the following provisions: 



Article 1. 

Military hospital-ships, that is 
to say, ships constructed or as- 
signed by States specially and 
solely with a view to assisting the 
wounded, sick, and shipwrecked, 
the names of which have been 
communicated to the belligerent 
Powers at the commencement or 
during the course of hostilities, 
and in any case before they are 
employed, shall be respected, and 
cannot be captured while hostili- 
ties last. 

These ships, moreover, are not 
on the same footing as warships as 
regards their stay in a neutral port. 



Article Premier. 

Les batiments-hopitaux mili- 
taires, c'est-a-dire les batiments 
construits ou amenages par les 
Etats specialement et uniquement 
en vue de porter secours aux 
blesses, malades et naufrages, et 
dont les noms auront ete commu- 
niques, a l'ouverture ou au cours 
des hostilites, en tout cas avant 
toute mise en usage, aux Puis- 
sances belligerantes, sont respectes 
et ne peuvent §tre captures pen- 
dant la duree des hostilites. 

Ces batiments ne sont pas non 
plus assimiles aux navires de 
guerre au point de vue de leur 
sejour dans un port neutre. 



202 



APPENDIX. 



Article 2. 

Hospital-ships, equipped wholly 
or in part at the expense of private 
individuals or officially recognized 
relief societies, shall be likewise 
respected and exempt from cap- 
ture, if the belligerent Power to 
whom they belong has given them 
an official commission and has no- 
tified their names to the hostile 
Power at the commencement of or 
during hostilities, and in any case 
before they are employed. 

These ships must be provided 
with a certificate from the compe- 
tent authorities declaring that the 
vessels have been under their con" 
trol while fitting out and on final 
departure. 

Article 3. 

Hospital-ships, equipped wholly 
or in part at the expense of private 
individuals or officially recognized 
societies of neutral countries, shall 
be respected and exempt from 
capture, on condition that they 
are placed under the control of one 
of the belligerents, with the pre- 
vious consent of their own Govern- 
ment and with the authorization 
of the belligerent himself, and that 
the latter has notified their name 
to his adversary at the commence- 
ment of or during hostilities, and 
in any case, before they are em- 
ployed. 

Article 4. 

The ships mentioned in Articles 
1, 2, and 3 shall afford relief and 
assistance to the wounded, sick, 
and shipwrecked of the belliger- 
ents without distinction of nation- 
ality. 

The Governments undertake not 
to use these ships for any military 
purpose. 



Article 2. 

Les batiments hospitaliers, 
equipes en totalite ou en partie 
aux frais des particuliers ou des 
societes de secours officiellement 
reconnues, sont egalement re- 
spectes et exempts de capture, si 
la Puissance belligerante dont ils 
dependent, leur a donne une com- 
mission officielle et en a notifie les 
noms a la Puissance adverse a 
l'ouverture ou au cours des hos- 
tilites, en tout cas avant toute mise 
en usage. 

Ces na vires doivent etre porteurs 
d'un document de l'autorite com- 
petente declarant qu'ils ont ete 
sounds a son controle pendant leur 
armement et a leur depart final. 

Article 3. 

Les batiments hospitaliers, 
equipes en totalite ou en partie 
aux frais des particuliers ou des 
societes officiellement reconnues 
de pays neutres, sont respectes et 
exempts de capture, a condition 
qu'ils se soient mis sous la direc- 
tion de l'un des belligerants, avec 
Passentiment prealable de leur 
propre Gouvernement et avec 
l'autorisation du belligerant lui- 
meme et que ce dernier en ait no- 
tifie le nom a son adversaire des 
l'ouverture ou dans le cours des 
hostilites, en tout cas, avant tout 
emploi. 

Article 4. 

Les batiments qui sont men- 
tionnes dans les articles 1, 2 et 3, 
porteront secours et assistance aux 
blesses, malades et naufrages des 
belligerants sans distinction de 
nationality . 

Les Gouvernements s'engagent a 
n'utiliser ces batiments pour aucun 
but militaire. 



GENEVA CONVENTION IN NAVAL WAR. 



203 



These vessels must in no wise 
hamper the movements of the 
combatants. 

During and after an engagement 
they will act at their own risk and 
peril. 

The belligerents shall have the 
right to control and search them; 
they can refuse to help them, 
order them off, make them take a 
certain course, and put a Commis- 
sioner on board; they can even 
detain them, if important circum- 
stances require it. 

As far as possible, the belliger- 
ents shall enter in the log of the 
hospital-ships the orders which 
they give them. 

Article 5. 

Military hospital-ships shall be 
distinguished by being painted 
white outside with a horizontal 
band of green about a metre and 
a-half (five feet) in breadth. 

The ships mentioned in Articles 
2 and 3 shall be distinguished by 
being painted white outside with 
a horizontal band of red about a 
metre and a-half (five feet) in 
breadth. 

The boats of the ships above 
mentioned, as also small craft 
which may be used for hospital 
work, shall be distinguished by 
similar painting. 

All hospital-ships shall make 
themselves known by hoisting, 
with their national flag, the white 
flag with a red cross provided by 
the Geneva Convention, and fur- 
ther, if they belong to a neutral 
State, by flying at the mainmast 
the national flag of the belligerent 
under whose control they are 
placed . 



Ces batiments ne devront gener 
en aucune maniere les mouve- 
ments des combattants. 

Pendant et apres le combat, ils 
agiront a leurs risques et perils. 

Les belligerants auront sur eux 
le droit de controle et de visite; Us 
pourront refuser leur concours, 
leur enjoindre de s' eloigner, leur 
imposer une direction determinee 
et mettre a bord un commissaire, 
meme les detenir, si la gravite des 
circonstances l'exigeait. 

Autant que possible, les bellige- 
rants inscriront sur le journal de 
bord des batiments hospitaliers les 
ordres qu'ils leur donneront. 

Article 5. 

Les batiments-hopitaux mili- 
t aires seront distingue s par une 
peinture exterieure blanche avec 
une bande horizontale verte d'un 
metre et demi de largeur environ. 

Les batiments qui sont mention- 
nes dans les articles 2 et 3, seront 
distingues par une peinture exte- 
rieure blanche avec une bande 
horizontale rouge d'un metre et 
demi de largeur environ. 

Les embarcations des batiments 
qui viennent d'etre mentionnes, 
comme les petits batiments qui 
pourront etre affectes au service 
hospitalier, se distingueront par 
une peinture analogue. 

Tous les batiments hospitaliers 
se feront reconnaitre en hissant, 
avec leur pavilion national, le pa- 
vilion blanc a croix-rouge prevu 
par la Convention de Geneve et, en 
outre, s'ils ressortissent a un Etat 
neutre, en arborant au grand mat 
le pavilion national du belligerant 
sous la direction duquel ils se sont 
places. 



204 



APPENDIX. 



Hospital-ships which, in the 
terms of Article 4, are detained by 
the enemy, must haul down the 
national flag of the belligerent to 
whom they belong. 

The ships and boats above men- 
tioned which wish to ensure by 
night the freedom from interfer- 
ence to which they are entitled, 
must, subject to the assent of the 
belligerent they are accompany- 
ing, take the necessary measures 
to render their special painting 
sufficiently plain. 

Article 6. 

The distinguishing signs referred 
to in Article 5 can only be used, 
whether in time of peace or war, 
for protecting or indicating the 
ships therein mentioned. 

Article 7. 

In the case of a fight on board a 
war-ship, the sick-wards shall be 
respected and spared as far as pos- 
sible. 

The said sick- wards and the ma- 
teriel belonging to them remain 
subject to the laws of war; they 
cannot, however; be used for any 
purpose other than that for which 
they were originally intended, so 
long as they are required for the 
sick and wounded. 

The commander, however, into 
whose power they have fallen may 
apply them to other purposes, if 
the military situation requires it, 
after seeing that the sick and 
wounded on board are properly 
provided for. 

Article 8. 

Hospital-ships and sick-wards of 
vessels are no longer entitled to 
protection if they are employed 
for the purpose of injuring the 
enemy. 



Les bailments hospitaliers qui, 
dans les termes de 1' article 4, sont 
detenus par l'ennemi, auront a 
rentrer le pavilion national du bel- 
ligerant dont ils relevent. 

Les batiments et embarcations 
ci-dessus mentionnes, qui veulent 
s' assurer la nuit le respect auquel 
ils ont droit, ont, avec l'assenti- 
ment du belligerant qu'ils accom- 
pagnent, a prendre les mesures 
necessaires pour que la peinture 
qui les caracterise soit suffisam- 
ment apparente. 

Article 6. 

Les signes distinctifs prevus a 
1' article 5 ne pourront etre em- 
ployes, soit en temps de paix, soit 
en temps de guerre, que pour pro- 
teger ou designer les batiments qui 
y sont mentionnes. 

Article 7. 

Dans le cas d'un combat a bord 
d'un vaisseau de guerre, les in- 
firmeries seront respectees et me- 
nagees autant que faire se pourra. 

Ces infirmeries et leur materiel 
demeurent soumis aux lois de la 
guerre, mais ne pourront etre d6- 
tournes de leur emploi, tant qu'ils 
seront necessaires aux blesses et 
malades. 



Toutefois le commandant, qui 
les a en son pouvoir, a la faculte 
d'en disposer, en cas de necessite 
militaire importante, eh assurant 
au prealable le sort des blesses et 
malades qui s'y trouvent. 

Article 8. 

La protection due aux batiments 
hospitaliers et aux infirmeries des 
vaisseaux cesse si Ton en use pour 
commettre des actes nuisibles a 
l'ennemi. 



GENEVA CONVENTION IN NAVAL WAE. 



205 



The fact of the staff of the said 
ships and sick- wards being armed 
for maintaining order and for de- 
fending the sick and wounded, and 
the presence of wireless telegraphy 
apparatus on board, is not a suffi- 
cient reason for withdrawing pro- 
tection. 

Article 9. 

Belligerents may appeal to the 
charity of the commanders of neu- 
tral merchant-ships, yachts, or 
boats to take on board and tend the 
sick and wounded. 

Vessels responding to this ap- 
peal, and also vessels which have 
of their own accord rescued sick, 
wounded, or shipwrecked men, 
shall enjoy special protection and 
certain immunities. In no case 
can they be captured for having 
such persons on board, but, apart 
from special undertakings that 
have been made to them, they re- 
main liable to capture for any 
violations of neutrality they may 
have committed. 

Article 10. 

The religious, medical, and hos- 
pital staff of any captured ship is 
inviolable, and its members can- 
not be made prisoners of war. On 
leaving the ship they take away 
with them the objects and surgical 
instruments which are their own 
private property. 

This staff shall continue to dis- 
charge its duties while necessary, 
and can afterwards leave, when 
the Commander-in-chief considers 
it possible. 

The belligerents must guarantee 
to the said staff, when it has fallen 
into their hands, the same allow- 



N'est pas considere comme etant 
de nature a justifier le retrait de la 
protection le fait que le personnel 
de ces batiments et infirmeries est 
arme pour le maintien de l'ordre et 
pour la defense des blesses ou 
malades, ainsi que le fait de la 
presence a bord d'une installation 
radio-telegraphique. 

Article 9. 

Les belligerants pourront faire 
appel au zele charitable des com- 
mandants de batiments de com- 
merce, yachts ou embarcations 
neutres, pour prendre a bord et 
soigner des blesses ou des malades. 

Les batiments qui auront i6- 
pondu a cet appel ainsi que ceux 
qui spontanement auront recueilli 
des blesses, des malades ou des 
naufrages, jouiront d'une protec- 
tion speciale et de certaines im- 
munites. En aucun cas, ils ne 
pourront etre captures pour le fait 
d'un tel transport; mais, sauf les 
promesses qui leur auraient etc" 
faites, ils restent exposes a la cap- 
ture pour les violations de neutra- 
lity qu'ils pourraient avoir com- 
mises. 

Article 10. 

Le personnel religieux, medical 
et hospitalier de tout batiment cap- 
ture est inviolable et ne peut etre 
fait prisonnier de guerre. II em- 
porte, en quittant le navire, les 
objets et les instruments de chi- 
rurgie qui sont sa propriete par- 
ticuliere. 

Ce personnel continuera a rem- 
plir ses fonctions tant que cela sera 
necessaire et il pourra ensuite se 
retirer, lorsque le commandant en 
chef le jugera possible. 

Les belligerants doivent assurer 
a ce personnel tombe entre leurs 
mains, les memes allocations et la 



206 



APPENDIX. 



ances and pay which are given to 
the staff of corresponding rank in 
their own navy. 

Article 11. 

Sailors and soldiers on board, 
when sick or wounded, as well as 
other persons officially attached to 
fleets or armies, whatever their 
nationality, shall be respected and 
tended by the captors. 

Article 12. 

Any war-ship belonging to a 
belligerent may demand that sick, 
wounded, or shipwrecked men on 
board military hospital-ships, hos- 
pital-ships belonging to relief 
societies or to private individuals, 
merchant-ships, yachts, or boats, 
whatever the nationality of these 
vessels, should be handed over. 

Article 13. 

If, sick, wounded, or ship- 
wrecked persons are taken on 
board a neutral war-ship, every 
possible precaution must be taken 
that they do not again take part 
in the operations of the war. 

Article 14. 

The shipwrecked, wounded, or 
sick of one of the belligerents who 
fall into the power of the other 
belligerent are prisoners of war. 
The captor must decide, according 
to circumstances, whether to keep 
them, send them to a port of his 
own country, to a neutral port, or 
even to an enemy port. In this 
last case, prisoners thus repatriated 
cannot serve again while the war 
lasts. 



meme solde qu'au personnel des 
memes grades de leur propre ma- 
rine. 

Article 11. 

Les marins et les militaires em- 
barques, et les autres personnes 
officiellement attachees aux ma- 
rines ou aux armees, blesses -ou 
malades, a quelque nation qu'ils 
appartiennent, seront respectes et 
soignes par les capteurs. 

Article 12. 

Tout vaisseau de guerre d'une 
Partie belligerante peut reclamer 
la remise des blesses, malades ou 
naufrages, qui sont a bord de bati- 
ments-hopitaux militaires, de bati- 
ments hospitaliers de societe de 
secours ou de particuliers, de na- 
vires de commerce, yachts et em- 
barcations, quelle que soit la na- 
tionalite de ces batiments. 

Article 13. 

Si des blesses, malades ou nau- 
frages sont recueillis a bord d'un 
vaisseau de guerre neutre, il devra 
etre pourvu, dans la mesure du pos- 
sible, a ce qu'ils ne puissent pas 
de nouveau prendre part aux 
operations de la guerre. 

Article 14. 

Sont prisonniers de guerre les 
naufrages, blesses ou malades, 
d'un belligerant qui tombent au 
pouvoir de l'autre. II appartient 
a celui-ci de decider, suivant les 
circonstances, s'il convient de les 
garder, de les diriger sur un port de 
sa nation, sur un port neutre ou 
meme sur un port de l'adversaire. 
Dans ce dernier cas, les prison- 
niers ainsi rendus a leur pays ne 
pourront servir pendant la duree 
de la guerre. 



GENEVA CONVENTION IN NAVAL WAR. 



207 



Article 15. 

The shipwrecked, sick, or 
wounded, who are landed at a neu- 
tral port with the consent of the 
local authorities, must, unless an 
arrangement is made to the con- 
trary between the neutral State 
and the belligerent States, be 
guarded by the neutral State so 
as to prevent them again taking 
part in the operations of the war. 

The expenses of tending them 
in hospital and interning them 
shall be borne by the State to 
which the shipwrecked, sick, or 
wounded persons belong. 

Article 16. 

After every engagement, the two 
belligerents, so far as military in- 
terests permit, shall take steps to 
look for the shipwrecked, sick, and 
wounded, and to protect them, as 
well as the dead, against pillage 
and ill treatment. 



They shall see that the burial, 
whether by land or sea, or crema- 
tion of the dead shall be preceded 
by a careful examination of the 
corpse. 

Article 17. 

Each belligerent shall send, as 
early as possible, to the authori- 
ties of their country, navy, or 
army the military marks or docu- 
ments of identity found on the 
dead and the description of the 
sick and wounded picked up by 
him. 

The belligerents shall keep each 
other informed as to internments 
and transfers as well as to the ad- 
missions into hospital and deaths 
which have occurred among the 



Article 15. 

Les naufrages, blesses ou ma- 
lades, qui sont debarques dans un 
port neutre, du consentement de 
l'autorite locale, devront, a moins 
d'un arrangement contraire de 
l'Etat neutre avec les Etats beili- 
gerants, etre gardes par l'Etat 
neutre de maniere qu'ils ne puis- 
sent pas de nouveau prendre part 
aux operations de la guerre. 

Le frais d 'hospitalisation et 
d'internement seront supported 
par l'Etat dont relevent les nau- 
frages, blesses ou malades. 

Article 16. 

Apres chaque combat, les deux 
Parties belligerantes, en tant que 
les interets militaires le compor- 
tent, prendront des mesures pour 
rechercher les naufrages, les blesses 
et les malades et pour les faire pro- 
teger, ainsi que les morts, contre 
le pillage et les mauvais traite- 
ments. 

Elles veilleront a ce que 1' in- 
humation, l'immersion ou l'incine- 
ration des morts soit precedee 
d'un examen attentif de leurs 
cadavres. 

Article 17. 

Chaque belligerant enverra, des 
qu'il sera possible, aux autorites 
de leur pays, de leur marine ou de 
leur armee, les marques ou pieces 
militaires d'identite trouvees sur 
les morts et l'etat nominatif des 
blesses ou malades recueillis par 
lui. 

Les belligerants se tiendront re- 
ciproquement au courant des in- 
ternements et des mutations, ainsi 
que des entrees dans les hopitaux 
et des deces survenus parmi les 



208 



APPENDIX. 



sick and wounded in their hands. 
They shall collect all the objects 
of personal use, valuables, letters, 
&c, which are found in the cap- 
tured ships, or which have been 
left by the sick or wounded who 
died in hospital, in order to have 
them forwarded to the persons con- 
cerned by the authorities of their 
own country. 

Article 18. 

The provisions of the present 
Convention do not apply except 
between Contracting Powers, and 
then only if all the belligerents 
are parties to the Convention. 

Article 19. 

The Commanders-in-chief of the 
belligerent fleets must see that the 
above Articles are properly carried 
out; they will have also to see to 
cases not covered thereby, in ac- 
cordance with the instructions of 
their respective Governments and 
in conformity with the general 
principles of the present Conven- 
tion. 

Article 20. 

The Signatory Powers shall take 
the necessary measures for bringing 
the provisions of the present Con- 
vention to the knowledge of their 
naval forces, and especially of the 
members entitled thereunder to 
immunity, and for making them 
known to the public. 

Article 21. 

The Signatory Powers likewise 
undertake to enact or to propose 
to their Legislatures, if their crim- 
inal laws are inadequate, the 
measures necessary for checking in 
time of war individual acts of pil- 



blesses et malades en leur pouvoir. 
lis recueilleront tous les objets 
d'un usage personnel, valeurs, let- 
tres, etc. qui seront trouves dans 
les vaisseaux captures, ou delaisses 
par les blesses ou malades deced^s 
dans les hopitaux, pour les faire 
transmettre aux interesses par les 
autorites de leur pays. 

Article 18. 

Les dispositions de la presente 
Convention ne sont applicables 
qu'entre les Puissances contrac- 
tantes et seulement si les belli- 
gerants sont tous parties a la Con- 
vention. 

Article 19. 

Les commandants en chef des 
flottes des belligerants auront a 
pourvoir aux details d' execution 
des articles precedents, ainsi qu'- 
aux cas non prevus, d'apres les 
instructions de leurs Gouverne- 
ments respectifs et conformement 
aux" principes generaux de la 
presente Convention. 

Article 20. 

Les Puissances signataires pren- 
dront les mesures neCessaires pour 
instruire leurs marines, et specia- 
lement le personnel protege, des 
dispositions de la presente Con- 
vention et pour les porter a la con- 
naissance des populations. 

Article 21. 

Les Puissances signataires s'en- 
gagent egalement a prendre ou a 
proposer a leurs legislatures, en 
cas d'insuffisance de leurs lois 
penales, les mesures necessaires 
pour reprimer en temps de guerre, 



GENEVA CONVENTION' IN" NAVAL WAR. 



209 



lage and ill-treatment in respect to 
the sick and wounded in the fleet, 
as well as for punishing, as an un- 
justifiable adoption of naval or 
military marks, the unauthorized 
use of the distinctive marks men- 
tioned in Article 5 by vessels not 
protected by the present Conven- 
tion. 

They will communicate to each 
other, through the Netherlands 
Government, the enactments for 
preventing such acts at the latest 
within five years of the ratification 
of the present Convention. 

Article 22. 

In the case of operations of war 
between the land and sea forces of 
belligerents, the provisions of the 
present Convention do not apply 
except between the forces actually 
on board ship. 



les actes individuels de pillage et 
de mauvais traitements en vers 
des blesses et malades des marines, 
ainsi que pour punir, comme 
usurpation d'insignes militaires, 
l'usage abusif des signes distinctifs 
designes a Particle 5 par des bati- 
ments non proteges par la presente 
Convention. 

lis se communiqueront, par 
l'intermediaire du Gouvernement 
des Pays-Bas, les dispositions rela- 
tives a cette repression, au plus 
tard dans les cinq ans de la ratifi- 
cation de la presente Convention. 

Article 22. 

En cas d' operations de guerre 
entre les forces de terre et de mer 
des belligerants, les dispositions 
de la presente Convention ne 
seront applicables qu'aux forces 
embarquees. 



(Article 23 is similar to Article 3 of the Convention for the Recovery 
of Contract Debts.) 



Article 24. 

Non-Signatory Powers which 
have accepted the Geneva Con- 
vention of the 6th July, 1906, may 
adhere to the present Convention. 

The Power which desires to ad- 
here notifies its intention to the 
Netherlands Government in writ- 
ing, forwarding to it the act of ad- 
hesion, which shall be deposited in 
the archives of the said Govern- 
ment. 

The said Government shall at 
once transmit to all the other Pow- 
ers a duly certified copy of the no- 
tification as well as of the act of 
adhesion, mentioning the date on 
which it received the notification. 



55983-09- 



Article 24. 

Les Puissances non signataires 
qui auront accepte la Convention 
de Geneve du 6 juillet 1906, sont 
admises a adherer a la presente 
Convention. 

La Puissance qui desire adherer, 
notifie par ecrit son intention au 
Gouvernement des Pays-Bas en 
lui transmettant l'acte d 'adhesion 
qui sera depose dans les archives 
dudit Gouvernement. 

Ce Gouvernement transmettra 
immediatement a toutes les autres 
Puissances copie certifiee con- 
forme de la notification ainsi que 
de Facte d'adhesion, en indiquant 
la date a laquelle il a recu la noti- 
fication. 



-14 



210 APPENDIX. 

Article 25. Article 25. 

The present Convention, duly La presente Convention, dument 
ratified, shall replace as between ratifiee, remplacera dans les rap- 
Contracting Powers, the Conven- ports entre les Puissances contrac- 
tion of the 29th July, 1899, for the tantes, la Convention du 29 juillet 
adaptation to maritime warfare of 1899 pour l'adaptation a la guerre 
the principles of the Geneva Con- maritime des principes de la Con- 
vention, vention de Geneve. 

The Convention of 1899 remains La Convention de 1899 reste en 

in force as between the Powers vigueur dans les rapports entre les 

which signed it but which do not Puissances qui Font signee et qui 

also ratify the present Convention, ne ratifieraient pas egalement la 

presente Convention. 

(Three articles follow, Nos. 26 to 28, similar to Articles 5 to 7 of the 
Convention for the Recovery of Contract Debts.) 



CONVENTION RELATIVE TO CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS 
WITH REGARD TO THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF 
CAPTURE IN NAVAL WAR. 

Signed by the United States Delegates. Ratification advised by the Senate, 

March 10, 1908. 

The Contracting Powers (see Pinal Act) recognizing the necessity of 
more effectively ensuring than hitherto the equitable application of 
law to the international relations of maritime Powers in time of war; 

Considering that, for this purpose, it is expedient, in giving up or, 
if necessary, in harmonizing for the common interest certain conflicting 
practices of long standing, to commence codifying in regulations of 
general application the guarantees due to peaceful commerce and 
legitimate business, as well as the conduct of hostilities by sea; that it 
is expedient to lay down in written mutual engagements the principles 
which have hitherto remained in the uncertain domain of controversy 
or have been left to the discretion of Governments; 

That, from henceforth, a certain number of rules may be made, with- 
uot affecting the common law now in force with regard to the matters 
which that law has left unsettled; 

Have appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries: 

[For names of Plenipotentiaries, see Final Act.] 

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and due 
form, have agreed upon the following provisions: 

Chapter I. — Postal Correspond- Chapitre I. — De la Correspon- 
ence. dance postale. 

Article 1. Article Premier. 

The postal correspondence of La correspondance postale des 
neutrals or belligerents, whatever neutres ou des belligerants, quel 
its official or private character que soit son caractere officiel ou 



EIGHT OF CAPTURE IN NAVAL WAR. 



211 



may be, found on the high seas on 
board a neutral or enemy ship, is 
inviolable. If the ship is de- 
tained, the correspondence is for- 
warded by the captor with the 
least possible delay. 

The provisions of the preceding 
paragraph do not apply, in case of 
violation of blockade, to corre- 
spondence destined for or proceed- 
ing from a blockaded port. 

Article 2. 

The inviolability of postal cor- 
respondence does not exempt a 
neutral mail-ship from the laws 
and customs of maritime war as to 
neutral merchant-ships in general. 
The ship, however, may not be 
searched except when absolutely 
necessary, and then only with as 
much consideration and expedi- 
tion as possible. 

Chapter II. — The Exemption from 
Capture of certain Vessels. 

Article 3. 

Vessels used exclusively for fish- 
ing along the coast or small boats 
employed in local trade are ex- 
empt from capture, as well as their 
appliances, rigging, tackle, and 
cargo. 

They cease to be exempt as soon 
as they take any part whatever in 
hostilities. 

The Contracting Powers agree 
not to take advantage of the harm- 
less character of the said vessels in 
order to use them for military pur- 
poses while preserving their peace- 
ful appearance. 

Article 4. 

Vessels charged with religious, 
scientific, or philanthropic mis- 
sions are likewise exempt from 
capture. 



prive, trouvee en mer sur un 
navire neutre ou ennemi, est 
inviolable. S'il y a saisie du 
navire, elle est expediee avec le 
moins de retard possible par le 
capteur. 

Les dispositions de l'alinea 
precedent ne s'appliquent pas, en 
cas de violation de blocus, a la 
correspondance qui est a destina- 
tion ou en provenance du port 
bloque. 

Article 2. 

L'inviolabilite de la corre- 
spondance postale ne soustrait 
pas les paquebots-poste neutres 
aux lois et coutumes de la guerre 
sur mer concernant les navires de 
commerce neutres en general. 
Toutefois, la visite n'en doit etre 
effectuee qu'en cas de necessite, 
avec tous les managements et 
toute la celerite possibles. 

Chapitre II. — De V exemption de 
capture pour certains bateaux. 

Article 3. 

Les bateaux exclusivement af- 
fectes a la peche cotiere ou a des 
services de petite navigation locale 
sont exempts de capture, ainsi 
que leurs engins, agres, apparaux 
et chargement. 

Cette exemption cesse de leur 
etre applicable des qu'ils partici- 
pent d'une facon quelconque aux 
hostilites. 

Les Puissances contractantes 
s'interdisent de profiter du carac- 
tere inoffensif desdits bateaux 
pour les employer dans un but 
militaire en leur conservant leur 
apparence pacifique. 

Article 4. 

Sont egalement exempts de cap- 
ture les navires charges de mis- 
sions religieuses, scientifiques ou 
philanthropiques . 



212 



APPENDIX. 



Chapter III. — Regulations regard- 
ing the Crews of Enemy Mer- 
chant-ships Captured by a Bel- 
ligerent. 

Article 5. 

When an enemy merchant-ship 
is captured by a belligerent, such 
qf its crew as are nationals of a neu- 
tral State are not made prisoners of 
war. 

The same rule applies in the 
case of the captain and officers like- 
wise nationals of a neutral State, 
if they promise formally in writing 
not to serve on an enemy ship 
while the war lasts. 



Article 6. 

The captain, officers, and mem- 
bers of the crew, when nationals 
of the enemy State, are not made 
prisoners of war, on condition that 
they make a formal promise in 
writing, not to undertake, while 
hostilities last, any service con- 
nected with the operations of the 
war. 

Article 7. 

The names of the persons re- 
taining their liberty under the con- 
ditions laid down in Article 5, par- 
agraph 2, and in Article 6, are no- 
tified by the belligerent captor 
to the other belligerent. The lat- 
ter is forbidden knowingly to em- 
ploy the said persons. 

Article 8. 

The provisions of the three pre- 
ceding Articles do not apply to 
ships taking part in the hostilities. 



Chapitre III. — Du regime des 
equipages des navires de commerce 
ennemis captures par un bel- 
lig errant. 

Article 5. 

Lorsqu'un navire de commerce 
ennemi est capture par un belli- 
gerant, les hommes de son equi- 
page, nationaux d'un Etat neutre, 
ne sont pas faits prisonniers de 
guerre. 

II en est de meme du capitaine 
et des officiers, egalement na- 
tionaux d'un Etat neutre, s'ils 
promettent formellement par ecrit 
de ne pas servir sur un navire 
ennemi pendant la duree de la 
guerre. 

Article 6. 

Le capitaine, les officiers et les 
membres de 1' equipage, nationaux 
de l'Etat ennemi, ne sont pas'faits 
prisonniers de guerre, a condition 
qu'ils s'engagent, sous la foi d'une 
promesse formelle ecrite, a ne 
prendre, pendant la duree des 
hoatilites, aucun service ayant 
rapport avec les operations de la 
guerre. 

Article 7. 

Les noms des individus laisses 
libres dans les conditions visees a 
Particle 5, alinea 2 et a Particle 6, 
sont notifies par le belligerant 
capteur a l'autre belligerant. II 
est interdit a ce dernier d'employer 
sciemment lesdits individus. 



Article 8. 

Les dispositions des trois articles 
precedents ne s'appliquent pas 
aux navires qui prennent part 
aux hostilites. 



NEUTRALS IN NAVAL WAR. 213 

Chapter IV. — Final Provisions. Chapitre IV. — Dispositions 

finales. 

Article 9. Article 9. 

The provisions of the present Les dispositions de la presente 
Convention do not apply except Convention ne sont applicables 
between Contracting Powers, and qu'entre les Puissances contrac- 
tion only if all the belligerents tantes et seulement si les belli- 
are parties to the Convention. gerants sont tous parties a la 

Convention. 

* * * * * * *■ #■ 

(Five articles follow, Nos. 10 to 14, similar to Articles 3 to 7 of the 
Convention for the Recovery of Contract Debts.) 



CONVENTION CONCERNING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES 
OF NEUTRAL POWERS IN NAVAL WAR. 

Not signed by the United States Delegates. Adherence, excepting to Article 
23, advised by the Senate, April 17, 1908. 

The Contracting Powers (see Final Act) with a view to harmonizing 
the divergent views which, in the event of naval war, are still held on 
the relations between neutral Powers and belligerent Powers, and to 
anticipating the difficulties to which such divergence of views might 
give rise; 

Seeing that, even if it is not possible at present to concert measures 
applicable to all circumstances which may in practice occur, it is 
nevertheless undeniably advantageous to frame, as far as possible, 
rules of general application to meet the case where war has unfortunately 
broken out ; 

Seeing that, in cases not covered by the present Convention, it is 
expedient to take into consideration the general principles of the law 
of nations; 

Seeing that it is desirable that the Powers should issue detailed enact- 
ments to regulate the results of the attitude of neutrality when adopted 
by them; 

Seeing that it is, for neutral Powers, an admitted duty to apply these 
rules impartially to the several belligerents; 

Seeing that, in this catagory of ideas, these rules should not, in 
principle, be altered, in the course of the war, by a neutral Power, ex- 
cept in a case where experience has shown the necessity for such change 
for the protection of the rights of that Power; 

Have agreed to observe the following common rules, which cannot 
however modify provisions laid down in existing general Treaties, and 
have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, namely: 

[For names of Plenipotentiaries, see Final Act.] 



214 



APPENDIX. 



Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and due 
form, have agreed upon the following provisions: 



Article 1. 

Belligerents are bound to respect 
the sovereign rights of neutral 
Powers and to abstain, in neutral 
territory or neutral waters, from 
any act which would, if knowingly 
permitted by any Power, consti- 
tute a violation of neutrality. 



Article 2. 

Any act of hostility, including 
capture and the exercise of the 
right of search, committed by bel- 
ligerent war-ships in the territorial 
waters of a neutral Power, consti- 
tutes a violation of neutrality and 
is strictly forbidden. 

Article 3. 

When a ship has been captured 
in the territorial waters of a neutral 
Power, this Power must employ, if 
the prize is still within its jurisdic- 
tion, the means at its disposal to 
release the prize with its officers 
and crew, and to intern the prize 
crew. 



If the prize is not in the jurisdic- 
tion of the neutral Power, the cap- 
tor Government, on the demand of 
that Power, must liberate the prize 
with its officers and crew. a 

Article 4. 

A Prize Court cannot be set up 
by a belligerent on neutral terri- 
tory or on a vessel in neutral 
waters. 



Article Premier. 

Les belligerants sont tenus de 
respecter les droits souverains des 
Puissances neutres et de s'abstenir, 
dans le territoire ou les eaux 
neutres, de tous actes qui con- 
stitueraient de la part des Puis- 
sances qui les tolereraient un 
manquement a leur neutralite. 

Article 2. 

Tous actes d'hostilite, y com- 
pris la capture et l'exercice du 
droit de visite, commis par des 
vaisseaux de guerre belligerants 
dans les eaux territoriales d'une 
Puissance neutre, constituent une 
violation de la neutralite et sont 
strictement interdits. 

Article 3. 

Quand un navire a ete capture 
dans les eaux territoriales d'une 
Puissance neutre, cette Puissance 
doit, si la prise est encore dans sa 
juridiction, user des moyens dont 
elle dispose pour que la prise soit 
relachee avec ses officiers et son 
equipage, et pour que 1' equipage 
mis a bord par le capteur soit 
interne. 

Si la prise est hors de la juridic- 
tion de la Puissance neutre, le 
Gouvernement capteur, sur la 
demande de celle-ci, doit relacher 
la prise avec ses officiers et son 
equipage. 

Article 4. 

Aucun tribunal des prises ne 
peut etre constitue par un bel- 
ligerant sur un territoire neutre ou 
sur un navire dans des eaux 
neutres. 



a See Resolution of Adherence, pp. 221-2, ast paragraph. 



NEUTRALS ]N NAVAL WAR. 



215 



Article 5. 

Belligerents are forbidden to use 
neutral ports and waters as a base 
of naval operations against their 
adversaries, and in particular to 
erect wireless telegraphy stations 
or any apparatus for the purpose 
of communicating with the bel- 
ligerent forces on land or sea. 

Article 6. 

The supply, in any manner, di- 
rectly or indirectly, by a neutral 
Power to a belligerent Power, of 
war-ships, ammunition, or war ma- 
terial of any kind whatever, is 
forbidden. 

Article 7. 

A neutral Power is not bound to 
prevent the export or transit, for. 
the use of either belligerent, of 
arms, ammunitions, or, in general, 
of anything which could be of use 
to an army or fleet. 

Article 8. 

A neutral Government is bound 
to employ the means at its disposal 
to prevent the fitting out or arming 
of any vessel within its jurisdiction 
which it has reason to believe is 
intended to cruise, or engage in 
hostile operations, against a Power 
with which that Government is at 
peace. It is also bound to display 
the same vigilance to prevent the 
departure from its jurisdiction of 
any vessel intended to cruise, or 
engage in hostile operations, which 
had been adapted entirely or 
partly within the said jurisdiction 
for use in war. 



Article 5. 

II est interdit aux belligerants de 
faire des ports et des eaux neutres 
la base d' operations navales contre 
leurs adversaires, notamment d'y 
installer des stations radio-tele- 
graphiques ou tout appareil destine 
a servir comme moyen de com- 
munication avec des forces bel- 
ligerantes sur terre ou sur mer. 

Article 6. 

La remise, a quelque titre que 
ce soit, faite directement ou in- 
directement par une Puissance 
neutre a une Puissance bellige- 
rante, de vaisseaux de guerre, de 
munitions, ou d'un materiel de 
guerre quelconque, est interdite. 

Article 7. 

Une Puissance neutre n'est pas 
tenue d'empecher l'exportation ou 
le transit, pour le compte de l'un 
ou de l'autre des belligerants, 
d'armes, de munitions, et, en 
general, de tout ce qui peut etre 
utile a une armee ou a une flotte. 

Article 8. 

Un Gouvernement neutre est 
tenu d'user des moyens dont il 
dispose pour emp£cher dans sa 
juridiction l'equipement ou Par- 
mementde tout navire, qu'ilades 
motifs raisonnables de croire des- 
tine a croiser ou a concourir a des 
operations hostiles contre une 
Puissance avec laquelle il est en 
paix. II est aussi tenu d'user de 
la meme surveillance pour em- 
pecher le depart hors de sa juri- 
diction de tout navire destine 
a croiser ou a concourir a des 
operations hostiles, et qui aurait 
ete, dans ladite juridiction, adapte 
en tout ou en partie a des usages 
de guerre. 



216 



APPENDIX. 



Article 9. 

A neutral Power must apply im- 
partially to the two belligerents 
the conditions, restrictions, or pro- 
hibitions made by it in regard to 
the admission into its ports, road- 
steads, or territorial waters, of bel- 
ligerent war-ships or of their prizes. 

Nevertheless, a neutral Power 
may forbid a belligerent vessel 
which has failed to conform to the 
orders and regulations made by it, 
or which has violated neutrality, 
to enter its ports or roadsteads. 

Article 10. 

The neutrality of a Power is not 
affected by the mere passage 
through its territorial waters of 
war-ships or prizes belonging to 
belligerents. 

Article 11. 

A neutral Power may allow bel- 
ligerent war-ships to employ its 
licensed pilots. 

Article 12. 

In the absence of special pro- 
visions to the contrary in the legis- 
lations of a neutral Power, bellig- 
erent war-ships are not permitted 
to remain in the ports, roadsteads, 
or territorial waters of the said 
Power for more than twenty-four 
hours, except in the cases covered 
by the present Convention. 

Article 13. 

If a Power which has been in- 
formed of the outbreak of hostili- 
ties learns that a belligerent war- 
ship is in one of its ports or road- 



Article 9. 

Une Puissance neutre doit ap- 
pliquer egalement aux deux bel- 
ligerants les conditions, restrictions 
ou interdictions, edictees par elle 
pour ce qui concerne l'admission 
dans ses ports, rades ou eaux ter- 
ritoriales, des navires de guerre 
belligerants ou de leurs prises. 

Toutefois, une Puissance neutre 
peut interdire l'acces de ses ports 
et de ses rades au navire bellige- 
rant qui aurait neglige de se con- 
former aux ordres et prescriptions 
edictes par elle ou qui aurait viole 
la neutralite. 

Article 10. 

La neutralite d'une Puissance 
n'est pas compromise par le simple 
passage dans ses eaux territoriales 
des navires de guerre et des prises 
des belligerants. 

Article 11. 

Une Puissance neutre peut 
laisser les navires de guerre des 
belligerants se servir de ses pilotes 
brevetes. 

Article 12. 

A defaut d'autres dispositions 
speciales de la legislation de la 
Puissance neutre, il est interdit 
aux navires de guerre des bel- 
ligerants de demeurer dans les 
ports et rades ou dans les eaux 
territoriales de ladite Puissance, 
pendant plus de 24 heures, sauf 
dans les cas prevus par la presente 
Convention. 

Article 13. 

Si une Puissance avisee de 
l'ouverture des hostilites apprend 
qu'un navire de guerre d'un bel- 
ligerant se trouve dans un de sea 



NEUTRALS IN NAVAL WAR. 



217 



steads, or in its territorial waters, 
it must notify the said ship to de- 
part within twenty-four hours or 
within the time prescribed by local 



regulations. 



Article 14. 

A belligerent war-ship may not 
prolong its stay in a neutral port 
beyond the permissible time ex- 
cept on account of damage or stress 
of weather. It must depart as soon 
as the cause of the delay is at 
an end. 

The regulations as to the question 
of the length of time which these 
vessels may remain in neutral ports, 
roadsteads, or waters, do not apply 
to war-ships devoted exclusively 
to religious, scientific, or philan- 
thropic purposes. 

Article 15. 

In the absence of special pro- 
visions to the contrary in the legis- 
lation of a neutral Power, the 
maximum number of war-ships 
belonging to a belligerent which 
may be in one of the ports or road- 
steads of that Power simulta- 
neously shall be three. 

Article 16. 

When war-ships belonging to 
both belligerents are present si- 
multaneously in a neutral port or 
roadstead, a period of not less than 
twenty-four hours must elapse be- 
tween the departure of the ship 
belonging to one belligerent and 
the departure of the ship belong- 
ing to the other. 

The order of departure is deter- 
mined by the order of arrival, un- 
less the ship which arrived first is 
so circumstanced that an exten- 
sion of its stay is permissible. 



ports et rades ou dans ses eaux 
territoriales, elle doit notifier au- 
dit navire qu'il devra partir dans 
les 24 heures ou dans le delai pre- 
sent par la loi locale. 

Article 14. 

Un navire de guerre belligerant 
ne peut prolonger son sejour dans 
un port neutre au dela de la duree 
legale que pour cause d'avaries ou 
a raison de l'etat de la mer. II 
devra partir des que la cause du 
retard aura cesse. 

Les regies sur la limitation du 
sejour dans les ports, rades et eaux 
neutres, ne s'appliquent pas aux 
navires de guerre exclusivement 
affectes a une mission religieuse, 
scientifique ou philanthropique . 

Article 15. 

A defaut d'autres dispositions 
speciales de la legislation de la 
Puissance neutre, le nombre maxi- 
mum des navires de guerre d'un 
belligerant qui pourront se trouver 
en meme temps dans un de ses 
ports ou rades, sera de trois. 

Article 16. 

Lorsque des navires de guerre 
des deux Parties belligerantes se 
trouvent simultanement dans un 
port ou une rade neutres, il doit 
s'ecouler au moins 24 heures entre 
le depart du navire d'un bel- 
ligerant et le depart du navire 
de l'autre. 

L'ordre des departs est deter- 
mine par l'ordre des arrivees, a 
moins que le navire arrive le 
premier ne soit dans le cas ou la 
prolongation de la duree legale du 
sejour est admise. 



218 



APPENDIX. 



A belligerent war-ship may not 
leave a neutral port or roadstead 
until twenty-four hours after the 
departure of a merchant-ship fly- 
ing the flag of its adversary. 

Article 17. 

In neutral ports and roadsteads 
belligerent war-ships may only 
carry out such repairs as are abso- 
lutely necessary to render them 
seaworthy, and may not add in any 
manner whatsoever to their fight- 
ing force. The local authorities of 
the neutral Power shall decide 
what repairs are necessary, and 
these must be carried out with the 
least possible delay. 

Article 18. 

Belligerent war-ships may not 
make use of neutral ports, road- 
steads, or territorial waters for 
replenishing or increasing their 
supplies of war material or their 
armament, or for completing their 
crews. 



Article 19. 

Belligerent war-ships may only 
revictual in neutral ports or road- 
steads to bring up their supplies to 
the peace standard. 

Similarly these vessels may only 
ship sufficient fuel to enable them 
to reach the nearest port in their 
own country. They may, on the 
other hand, fill up their bunkers 
built to carry fuel, when in neu- 
tral countries which have adopted 
this method of determining the 
amount of fuel to be supplied. 



Un navire de guerre belligerant 
ne peut quitter un port ou une 
rade neutres moins de 24 heures 
apres le depart d'un navire de 
commerce portant le pavilion de 
son adversaire. 

Article 17. 

Dans les ports et rades neutres, 
les navires de guerre belligerants 
ne peuvent reparer leurs avaries 
que dans la mesure indispensable 
a la securite de leur navigation et 
non pas accroitre, d'une maniere 
quelconque, leur force militaire. 
L'autorite neutre constatera la 
nature des reparations a effectuer 
qui devront etre executees le plus 
rapidement possible. 

Article 18. 

Les navires de guerre bellige- 
rants ne peuvent pas se servir des 
ports, rades et eaux territoriales 
neutres, pour renouveler ou aug- 
menter leurs approvisionnements 
militaires ou leur armement ainsi 
que pour completer leurs Equi- 
pages. 

Article 19. 

Les navires de guerre bellige- 
rants ne peuvent se ravitailler 
dans les ports et rades neutres que 
pour completer leur appro visionne- 
ment normal du temps de paix. 

Ces navires ne peuvent, de 
meme, prendre du combustible 
que pour gagner le port le plus 
proche de leur propre pays. lis 
peuvent, d'ailleurs, prendre le 
combustible necessaire pour com- 
pleter le plein de leurs soutes 
proprement dites, quand ils se 
trouvent dans les pays neutres qui 
ont adopte ce mode de determi- 
nation du combustible a fournir. 



NEUTKALS IN NAVAL WAR. 



219 



If, in accordance with the law of 
the neutral Power, the ships are 
not supplied with coal within 
twenty-four hours of their arrival, 
the permissible duration of their 
stay is extended by twenty-four 
hours. 

Article 20. 

Belligerent war-ships which 
have shipped fuel in a port belong- 
ing to a neutral Power may not 
within the succeeding three months 
replenish their supply in a port of 
the same Power. 



Article 21. 

A prize may only be brought into 
a neutral port on account of unsea- 
worthiness, stress of weather, or 
want of fuel or provisions. 

It must leave as soon as the cir- 
cumstances which justified its 
entry are at an end . If it does not, 
the neutral Power must order it to 
leave at once; should it fail to obey, 
the neutral Power must employ 
the means at its disposal to release 
it with its officers and crew and to 
intern the prize crew. 



Article 22. 

A neutral Power must, similarly, 
release a prize brought into one of 
its ports under circumstances 
other than those referred to in 
Article 21. 

Article 23. a 

A neutral Power may allow 
prizes to enter its ports and road- 
steads, whether under convoy or 
not, when they are brought there 
to be sequestrated pending the 



Si, d'apres la loi de la Puissance 
neutre, les navires ne recoivent 
du charbon que 24 heures apres 
leur arrivee, la duree legale de 
leur sejour est prolongee de 24 
heures. 

Article 20. 

Les navires de guerre bellige- 
rants, qui ont pris du combustible 
dans le port d'une Puissance 
neutre, ne peuvent renouveler 
leur approvisionnement qu'apres 
trois mois dans un port de la meme 
Puissance. 

Article 21. 

Une prise ne peut §tre amenee 
dans un port neutre que pour 
cause d'innavigabilite, de mau- 
vais etat de la mer, de manque de 
combustible ou % de provisions. 

Elle doit repartir aussitot que la 
cause qui en a justlfie l'entree a 
cesse. Si elle ne le fait pas, la 
Puissance neutre doit lui notifier 
l'ordre de partir immediatement; 
au cas ou elle ne s'y conformerait 
pas, la Puissance neutre doit user 
des moyens dont elle dispose pour 
la relacher avec ses officiers et son 
equipage et intern er 1' equipage 
mis a bord par le capteur. 

Article 22. 

La Puissance neutre doit, de 
meme, relacher la prise qui aurait 
ete amenee en dehors des condi- 
tions prevues par Particle 21. 

Article 23. 

Une Puissance neutre peut per- 
mettre l'acces de ses ports et rades 
aux prises escortees ou non, 
lorsqu'elles y sont amenees pour 
etre laissees sous sequestre en 



a Not adhered to: see Resolution of Adherence, page 221. 



220 



APPENDIX. 



decision of a Prize Court. It may 
have the prize taken to another of 
its ports. 

If the prize is convoyed by a 
war-ship, the prize crew may go on 
board the convoying ship. 



If the prize is not under convoy, 
the prize crew are left at liberty. 

Article 24. 

If, notwithstanding the notifica- 
tion of the neutral Power, a bellig- 
erent ship of war does not leave a 
port where it is not entitled to 
remain, the neutral Power is enti- 
tled to take such measures as it 
considers necessary to render the 
ship incapable of taking the sea 
during the war, and the command- 
ing officer of the ship must facili- 
tate the execution of such meas- 
ures. 

When a belligerent ship is de- 
tained by a neutral Power, the 
officers and crew are likewise de- 
tained. 

The officers and crew thus de- 
tained may be left in the ship or 
kept either on another vessel or on 
land, and may be subjected to the 
measures of restriction which it 
may appear necessary to impose 
upon them. A sufficient number 
of men for looking after the vessel 
must, however, be always left on 
board. 

The officers may be left at liberty 
on giving their word not to quit 
the neutral territory without per- 
mission. 

Article 25. 

A neutral Power is bound to ex- 
ercise such surveillance as the 
means at its disposal allow to pre- 



attendant la decision du tribunal 
des prises. Elle peut faire con- 
duire la prise dans un autre de 
ses ports. 

Si la prise est escortee par un 
navire de guerre, les officiers et les 
hommes mis a bord par le capteur 
sont autorises a passer sur le 
navire d'escorte. 

Si la prise voyage seule, le per- 
sonnel place a son bord par le 
capteur est laisse en liberte. 

Article 24. 

Si, malgre la notification de 
Pautorite neutre, un navire de 
guerre belligerant ne quitte pas 
un port dans lequel il n'a pas le 
droit de rester, la Puissance neutre 
a le droit de prendre les mesures 
qu'elle pourra juger necessaires 
pour rendre le navire incapable de 
prendre la mer pendant la duree 
de la guerre et le commandant du 
navire doit faciliter 1' execution de 
ces mesures. 

Lorsqu'un navire belligerant est 
retenu par une Puissance neutre, 
les officiers et 1' equipage sont 
egalement retenus. 

Les officiers et l'equipage ainsi 
retenus peuvent 6tre laisses dans 
le navire ou loges, soit sur un autre 
navire, soit a terre, et ils peuvent 
etre assujettis aux mesures restric- 
tives qu'il paraitrait necessaire de 
leur imposer. Toutefois, on devra 
toujours laisser sur le navire les 
hommes necessaires a son entre- 
tien. 

Les officiers peuvent etre laisses 
libres en prenant 1' engagement sur 
parole de ne pas quitter le terri- 
toire neutre sans autorisation. 

Article 25. 

Une Puissance neutre est tenue 
d'exercer la surveillance, que 
comportent les moyens dont elle 



NEUTKALS IN NAVAL WAR. 



221 



dispose, pour empecher dans ses 
ports ou rades et dans ses eaux 
toute violation des dispositions qui 
precedent. 

Article 26. 

L'exercice par une Puissance 
neutre des droits dermis par la 
presente Convention ne peut 
jamais etre considere comme un 
acte peu amical par l'un ou par 
l'autre belligerant qui a accepte 
les articles qui precedent. 

Article 27. 

Les Puissances contractantes se 
communiqueront reciproquement, 
en temps utile, toutes les lois, 
ordonnances et autres dispositions 
reglant chez elles le regime des 
na vires de guerre belligerants dans 
leurs ports et leurs eaux, au moyen 
d'une notification adressee au 
Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et 
transmise immediatement par ce- 
lui ci aux autres Puissances con- 
tractantes. 

Article 28. 

Les dispositions de la presente 
Convention ne sont applicables 
qu'entre les Puissances contrac- 
tantes et seulement si les bellige- 
rants sont tous parties a la Con- 
t vention. 

(Five articles follow, Nos. 29 to 33, similar to Articles 3 to 7 of the 
Convention for the Recovery of Contract Debts.) 



vent any violation of the provisions 
of the above Articles occurring in 
its ports or roadsteads or in its 
waters. 

Article 26. 

The exercise by a neutral Power 
of the rights laid down in the pres- 
ent Convention can under no cir- 
cumstances be considered as an 
unfriendly act by one or other bel- 
ligerent who has accepted the 
Article relating thereto. 

Article 27. 

The Contracting Powers shall 
communicate to each other in due 
course all Laws, Proclamations, 
and other enactments regulating 
in their respective countries the 
status of belligerent warships in 
their ports and waters, by means 
of a communication addressed to 
the Government of the Nether- 
lands, and forwarded immediately 
by that Government to the other 
Contracting Powers. 

Article 28. 

The provisions of the present 
Convention do not apply except 
between Contracting Powers, and 
then only if all the belligerents are 
parties to the Convention. 



RESOLUTION OF ADHERENCE. 

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), That 
the Senate advise and consent to the adherence of the United States 
to a convention adopted by the Second International Peace Conference 
held at The Hague from June 15 to October 18, 1907, concerning the 
rights and duties of neutral powers in naval war, reserving and exclud- 
ing, however, Article 23 thereof, which is in the following words: 

"A neutral power may allow prizes to enter its ports and roadsteads, 
whether under convoy or not, when they are brought there to be 



222 



APPENDIX. 



sequestrated pending the decision of a prize court. It may have the 

prize taken to another of its ports. 

"If the prize is convoyed by a war ship, the prize crew may go on 

board the convoying ship. 

"If the prize is not under convoy, the prize crew are left at liberty." 
Resolved, further, That the United States adheres to this convention 

with the understanding that the last clause of Article 3 implies the duty 

of a neutral power to make the demand therein mentioned for the 

return of a ship captured within the neutral jurisdiction and no longer 

within that jurisdiction. 



DECLARATION PROHIBITING THE DISCHARGE OF 
PROJECTILES AND EXPLOSIVES FROM BALLOONS. 

Signed by the United States Delegates. Ratification advised by the Senate, 

March 10, 1908. 



The Undersigned, Plenipo- 
tentiaries of the Powers invited to 
the Second International Peace 
Conference at The Hague, duly 
authorized to that effect by their 
Governments, inspired by the 
sentiments which found expres- 
sion in the Declaration of St. 
Petersburg of the 29th November 
(11th December), 1868, and being 
desirous of renewing the declara- 
tion of The Hague of the 29th July, 
1899, which has now expired, 

Declare: 

The Contracting Powers agree to 
prohibit, for a period extending to 
the close of the Third Peace Con- 
ference, the discharge of projec- 
tiles and explosives from balloons 
or by other new methods of a simi- 
lar nature. 

The present Declaration is only 
binding on the Contracting Powers 
in case of war between two or more 
of them. 

It shall cease to be binding from 
the time when, in a war between 
the Contracting Powers, one of the 
belligerents is joined by a non- 
Contracting Power. 



Les soussignes, Plenipotentiaries 
des Puissances conviees a la Deu- 
xieme Conference Internationale 
de la Paix a La Haye, diiment au- 
torises a cet effet par leurs Gou- 
vernements, s'inspirant des senti- 
ments qui ont trouve leur expres- 
sion dans la Declaration de St. Pe- 
tersbourg du 29 novembre (11 de- 
cembre) 1868, et desirant renouve- 
ler la Declaration de La Haye du 
29 juillet 1899, arrivee a expiration, 

Declarent: 

Les Puissances contractantes 
consentent, pour une periode 
allant jusqu'a la fin de la troisieme 
Conference de la Paix, a l'inter- 
diction de lancer des projectiles 
et des explosifs du haut de ballons 
ou par d'autres modes analogues 
nouveaux. 

La presente Declaration n'est 
obligatoire que pour les Puissances 
contractantes, en cas de guerre 
entre deux ou plusieurs d'entre 
elles. 

Elle cessera d'etre obligatoire du 
moment ou, dans une guerre entre 
des Puissances contractantes, une 
Puissance non contractante se 
joindrait a l'un des belligerants. 



EXPLOSIVES FROM BALLOONS. 



223 



The present Declaration shall be 
ratified as soon as possible. 

The ratifications shall be de- 
posited at The Hague. 

A proces-verbal shall be drawn up 
recording the receipt of the ratifi- 
cations, of which a duly certified 
copy shall be sent, through the 
diplomatic channel, to all the Con- 
tracting Powers. 

Non-Signatory Powers may ad- 
here to the present Declaration. 
To do so, they must make known 
their adhesion to the Contracting 
Powers by means of a written noti- 
fication, addressed to the Nether- 
lands Government, and communi- 
cated by it to all the other Con- 
tracting Powers. 

In the event of one of the High 
Contracting Parties denouncing 
the present Declaration, such de- 
nunciation shall not take effect 
until a year after the notification 
made in writing to the Netherlands 
Government, and forthwith com- 
municated by it to all the other 
Contracting Powers. 

This denunciation shall only 
have affect in regard to the notify- 
ing Power. 

In faith whereof the Plenipo- 
tentiaries have appended their 
signatures to the present Declara- 
tion, a 

Done at The Hague, the 18th 
October, 1907, in a single copy, 
which shall remain deposited in 
the archives of the Netherlands 
Government, and duly certified 
copies of which shall be sent, 
through the diplomatic channel, 
to the Contracting Powers. 



La presente ? Declaration sera 
ratifiee dans le plus bref delai pos- 
sible. 

Les ratifications seront deposees 
a La Haye. 

II sera dresse du depot des ratifi- 
cations un proces-verbal, dont une 
copie, certifiee conforme, sera re- 
mise par la voie diplomatique a 
toutes les Puissances contractantes. 

Les Puissances non signataires 
pourront adherer a la presente 
Declaration. Elles auront, a cet 
effet, a faire connaitre leur ad- 
hesion aux Puissances contrac- 
tantes, au moyen d'une notifica- 
tion ecrite, adressee au Gouverne- 
ment des Pays-Bas et communi- 
quee par celui-ci a toutes les au- 
tres Puissances contractantes. 

S'il arrivait qu'une des Hautes 
Parties Contractantes denoncat la 
presente Declaration, cette denon- 
ciation ne produirait ses effets 
qu'un an apres la notification 
faite par ecrit au Gouvernement 
des Pays-Bas et communiquee im- 
mediatement par celui-ci a toutes 
les autres Puissances contractantes. 

Cette denunciation ne produira 
ses effets qu'a l'egard de la Puis- 
sance qui l'aura notifiee. 
p En foi de quoi, les Plenipoten- 
tiaires ont revetu la present Decla- 
ration de leurs signatures. 

Fait a La Haye, le dix-huit 
octobre mil neuf cent sept, en un 
seul exemplaire qui restera depose 
dans les archives du Gouverne- 
ment des Pays-Bas et dont des 
copies, certifiees conformes, seront 
remises par la voie diplomatique 
aux Puissances contractantes. 



a See at end, Table of Signatures. 



224 



APPENDIX. 



CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE STATUS OF ENEMY 
MERCHANT SHIPS AT THE OUTBREAK OF HOSTILI- 
TIES. 



Not signed by the United States Delegates. 

the Senate. 



Ratification not advised by 



The Contracting Powers (see Final Act) anxious to ensure the security 
of international commerce against the surprises of war, and wishing, in 
accordance with modem practice, to protect as far as possible operations 
undertaken in good faith and in process of being carried out before the 
outbreak of hostilities, have resolved to conclude a Convention to this 
effect, and have appointed the following persons as their Plenipo- 
tentiaries: 

[For names of Plenipotentiaries, see Final Act.] 

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and due 
form, have agreed upon the following provisions: — 



Article 1. 

When a merchant-ship belong- 
ing to one of the belligerent Powers 
is at the commencement of hos- 
tilities in an enemy port, it is 
desirable that it should be allowed 
to depart freely, either immedi- 
ately, or after a reasonable number 
of days of grace, and to proceed, 
after being furnished with a pass, 
direct to its port of destination or 
any other port indicated. 

The same rule should apply in 
the case of a ship which has left its 
last port of departure before the 
commencement of the war and 
entered a port belonging to the 
enemy while still ignorant that 
hostilities had broken out. 

Article 2. 

A merchant-ship unable, owing 
to circumstances of force majeure, 
to leave the enemy port within 
the period contemplated in the 
above Article, or which was not 
allowed to leave, cannot be con- 
fiscated. 

The belligerent may only detain 
it, without payment of compensa- 



Article Premier. 

Lorsqu'un navire de commerce 
relevant d'une des Puissances bel- 
ligerantes se trouve, au debut des 
hostilites, dans un port ennemi, il 
est desirable qu'il lui soit permis 
de sortir librement, immediate- 
ment ou apres un delai de faveur 
suffisant, et de gagner directement, 
apres avoir ete munid'un laissez- 
passer, son port de destination ou 
tel autre port qui lui sera designe. 

II en est de meme du navire 
ayant quitte son dernier port de 
depart avant le commencement de 
la guerre et entrant dans un port 
ennemi sans connaitre les hos- 
tilites. 

Article 2. 

Le navire de commerce qui, par 
suite de circonstances de force 
majeure, n'aurait pu quitter le 
port ennemi pendant le delai vise 
a Particle precedent, ou auquel la 
sortie n'aurait pas ete accordee, ne 
peut etre confisque. 

Le belligerant peut seulement 
le saisir moyennant 1' obligation de 



STATUS OP ENEMY MERCHANT SHIPS. 



225 



tion, but subject to the obligation 
of restoring it after the war, or 
requisition it on payment of com- 
pensation. 

Article 3. 

Enemy merchant-ships which 
left their last port of departure 
before the commencement of the 
war, and are encountered on the 
high seas while still ignorant of 
the outbreak of hostilities cannot 
be confiscated. They are only 
liable to detention on the under- 
standing that they shall be restored 
after the war without compensa- 
tion, or to be requisitioned, or 
even destroyed, on . payment of 
compensation, but in such case 
provision must be made for the 
safety of the persons on board as 
well as the security of the ship's 
papers. 

After touching at a port in their 
own country or at a neutral port, 
these ships are subject to the laws 
and customs of maritime war. 

Article 4. 

Enemy cargo on board the ves- 
sels referred to in Articles 1 and 2 
is likewise liable to be detained 
and restored after the termination 
of the war without payment of 
compensation, or to be requisi- 
tioned on payment of compensa- 
tion, with or without the ship. 

The same rule applies in the 
case of cargo on board the vessels 
referred to in Article 3. 

Article 5. 

The presentTConvention does 
not affect merchant-ships whose 
build shows that they are intended 
for conversion into war-ships. 

55983—09 15 



le restituer apres la guerre sans 
indemnite, ou le r^quisitionner 
moyennant indemnite. 

Article 3. 

Les navires de commerce enne- 
mis, qui ont quitte leur dernier 
port de depart avant le commence- 
ment de la guerre et qui sont ren- 
contres en mer ignorants des hos- 
tilites, ne peuvent etre confisques. 
lis sont seulement sujets a etre sai- 
sis, moyennant 1' obligation de les 
restituer apres la guerre sans in- 
demnite, ou a etre requisitionnes, 
ou meme a etre detruits, a charge 
d'indemnite et sous l'obligation 
de pourvoir a la securite des per- 
sonnes ainsi qu'a la conservation 
des papiers de bord. 



Apres avoir touche a un port de 
leur pays ou a un port neutre, ces 
navires sont soumis aux lois et cou- 
tumes de la guerre maritime. 

Article 4. 

Les marchandises ennemies se 
trouvant a bord des navires vises 
aux articles 1 et 2 sont egalement 
sujettes a etre saisies et restitutes 
apres la guerre sans indemnity, ou a 
£tre requisitionnees moyennant in- 
demnite, conjointement avec le 
navire ou separement. 

II en est de meme des marchan- 
dises se trouvant a bord des navires 
vis£s a Particle 3. 

Article 5. 

La presente Convention ne vise 
pas les navires de commerce dont 
la construction indique qu'ils sont 
destines a etre transformed en bati- 
ments de guerre. 



226 



APPENDIX. 



Article 6. 



Article 6. 



The provisions of the present 
Convention do not apply except 
between Contracting Powers, and 
then only if all the belligerents are 
parties to the Convention. 



Les dispositions de la presente 
Convention ne sont applicables 
qu'entre les Puissances contrac- 
tantes et seulement si les bellig£- 
rants sont tous parties a la Con- 
vention. 
#■*■*# **** 

(Five articles follow, Nos. 7 to 11, similar to Articles 3 to 7 of the 
Convention for the Recovery of Contract Debts.) 



CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE CONVERSION 
MERCHANT SHIPS INTO WAR SHIPS. 



OF 



Not signed by the United States Delegates. 

the Senate. 



Ratification not advised by 



The Contracting Powers (see Final Act), considering that it is desir- 
able, in view of the incorporation in time of war of merchant-ships in 
the fighting fleet, to define the conditions subject to which this opera- 
tion may be effected ; 

Whereas, however, the Contracting Powers have been unable to 
come to an agreement on the question whether the conversion of a 
merchant-ship into a war-ship may take place upon the high seas, it is 
understood that the question of the place where such conversion is ef- 
fected remains outside the scope of this Agreement and is in no way 
affected by the following rules; 

Being desirous of concluding a Convention to this effect, have 
appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries: 

[For names of Plenipotentiaries, see Final Act.] 

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and due 
form, have agreed upon the following provisions: 



Article 1. 

A merchant-ship converted into 
a war-ship cannot have the rights 
and duties accruing to such vessels 
unless it is placed under the direct 
authority, immediate control, and 
responsibility of the Power whose 
flag it flies. 

Article 2. 

Merchant-ships converted into 
war-ships must bear the external 
marks which distinguish the war- 
ships of their nationality. 



Article Premier. 

Aucun navire de commerce 
transforme en batiment de guerre 
ne peut avoir les droits et les obliga- 
tions attaches a cette qualite, s'il 
n'est place sous l'autorite directe, 
le controle immediat et la respon- 
sabilite de la Puissance dont il 
porte le pavilion. 

Article 2. 

Les navires de commerce trans- 
formes en batiments de guerre 
doivent porter les signes ext6- 
rieurs distinctifs des batiments de 
guerre de leur nationality. 



INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT. 



227 



Article 3. 

The commander must be in the 
service of the State and duly com- 
missioned by the competent au- 
thorities. His name must figure 
on the list of the officers of the 
fighting fleet. 

Article 4. 

The crew must be subject to 
military discipline. 

Article 5. 

Every merchant-ship converted 
into a war-ship must observe in its 
operations the laws and customs of 
wars. 

Article 6. 

A belligerent who converts a 
merchant-ship into a war-ship 
must, as soon as possible, announce 
such conversion in the list of war- 
ships. 



Article 7. 



Article 3. 

Le commandant doit etre au 
service de l'Etat et dument com- 
missionne par les autorites com- 
peteutes. Son nom doit figurer 
sur la liste des officiers de la flotte 
militaire. 

Article 4. 

L'equipage doit etre soumis aux 
regies de la discipline militaire. 

Article 5. 

Tout navire de commerce trans- 
forme en batiment de guerre est 
tenu d' observer dans ses opera- 
tions, les lois et coutumes de la 
guerre. 

Article 6. 

Le belligerant, qui transforme 
un navire de commerce en bati- 
ment de guerre, doit, le plus tot 
possible, mentionner cette trans- 
formation sur la liste des batiments 
de sa flotte militaire. 

Article 7. 



The provisions of the present 
Convention do not apply except 
between Contracting Powers, and 
then only if all the belligerents are 
parties to the Convention. 



Les dispositions de la presente 
Convention ne sont applicables 
qu'entre les Puissances contrac- 
tantes et seulement si les bellige- 
rants sont tous parties a, la Con- 
vention. 

(Five articles follow, Nos. 8 to 12, similar to Articles 3 to 7 of the 
Convention for the Recovery of Contract Debts.) 



CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE CREATION OF AN 
INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT. 



Signed by the United States Delegates. 

the Senate. 



Ratification not advised by 



The Contracting Powers (see Final Act), animated by the desire to 
settle in an equitable manner the differences which sometimes arise 
in the course of a naval war in connection with the decisions of National 
Prize Courts; 



228 



APPENDIX. 



Considering that, if these Courts are to continue to exercise their 
functions in the manner determined by national legislation it is desir- 
able that in certain cases an appeal should be provided, under condi- 
tions conciliating, as far as possible, the public and private interests 
involved in matters of prize; 

Whereas, moreover, the institution of an International Court, whose 
jurisdiction and procedure would be carefully denned, has seemed to 
be the best method of attaining this object; 

Convinced, finally, that in this manner the hardships consequent 
on naval war would be mitigated; that, in particular, good relations 
will be more easily maintained between belligerents and neutrals and 
peace better assured; 

Desirous of concluding a Convention to this effect, have appointed 
the following as their Plenipotentiaries: 

[For names of Plenipotentiaries see Final Act.] 

Who, after depositing their full powers, found in good and due form, 
have agreed upon the following provisions: 



Part I. — General Provisions. 
Article 1. 

The validity of the capture of a 
merchant-ship or its cargo is 
decided before a Prize Court in 
accordance with the present Con- 
vention when neutral or enemy 
property is involved. 

Article 2. 

Jurisdiction in matters of prize 
is exercised in the first instance by 
the Prize Courts of the belligerent 
captor. 

The judgments of these Courts 
are pronounced in public or are 
officially notified to parties con- 
cerned who are neutrals or ene- 



mies. 



Article 3. 



The judgments of National Prize 
Courts may be brought before the 
International Prize Court — 

1. When the judgment of the 
National Prize Courts affects the 
property of a neutral Power or 
individual; 



Titre I. — Dispositions generates. 
Article Premier. 

La validite de la capture d'un 
navire de commerce ou de sa car- 
gaison est, s'il s'agit de proprietes 
neutres ou ennemies, etablie de- 
vant une juridiction des prises 
conformement a la presente Con- 
vention. 

Article 2. 

La juridiction des prises est 
exercee d'abord par les tribunaux 
de prises du belligerant capteur. 

Les decisions de ces tribunaux 
sont prononcees en stance publi- 
que ou notifiees d'office aux par- 
ties neutre ou ennemies. 

Article 3. 

Les decisions des tribunaux de 
prises nationaux peuvent &tre 
l'objet d'un recours devant la 
Cour internationale des prises: 

1° lorsque la decision des tribu- 
naux nationaux concerne les pro- 
prietes d'une Puissance ou d'un 
particulier neutres; 



INTERNATIONAL PKIZE COURT. 



229 



2. When the judgment affects 
enemy property and relates to — 

(a) Cargo on board a neutral 
ship; 

(6) An enemy ship captured in 
the territorial waters of a neutral 
Power, when that Power has not 
made the capture the subject of a 
diplomatic claim; 



(c) A claim based upon the alle- 
gation that the seizure has been 
effected in violation, either of the 
provisions of a Convention in force 
between the belligerent Powers, or 
of an enactment issued by the bel- 
ligerent captor. 

The appeal against the judgment 
of the National Court can be based 
on the ground that the judgment 
was wrong either in fact or in law. 

Article 4. 

An appeal may be brought — 

1. By a neutral Power, if the 
judgment of the National Tribu- 
nals injuriously affects its property 
or the property of its nationals 
(Article 3 (1) ), or if the capture of 
an enemy vessel is alleged to have 
taken place in the territorial 
waters of that Power (Article 3 (2) 

2. By a neutral individual, if 
the judgment of the National 
Court injuriously affects his prop- 
erty (Article 3 (1) ), subject, how- 
ever, to the reservation that the 
Power to which he belongs may 
forbid him to bring the case before 
the Court, or may itself undertake 
the proceedings in his place; 

3. By an individual subject or 
citizen of an enemy Power, if the 



2° lorsque ladite decision con- 
cerne des proprietes ennemies et 
qu'il s'agit: 

(a) de marchandises chargees 
sur un navire neutre, 

(6) d'un navire ennemi, qui 
aurait ete capture dans les eaux 
territoriales d'une Puissance 
neutre, dans le cas ou cette Puis- 
sance n'aurait pas fait de cette 
capture 1'objet d'une reclamation 
diplomatique, 

(c) d'une reclamation fondee 
sur 1'allegation que la capture 
aurait ete effectuee en violation, 
soit d'une disposition convention- 
nelle en vigueur entre les Puis- 
sances belligerantes, soit d'une 
disposition legale edictee par le 
belligerant capteur. 

Le recours contre la decision des 
tribunaux nationaux peut §tre 
fonde sur ce que cette decision ne 
serait pas justifiee, soit en fait, soit 
en droit. 

Article 4. 

Le recours peut etre exerce: 
1° par une Puissance neutre, si 
la decision des tribunaux natio- 
naux a porte atteinte a ses pro- 
prietes ou a celles de ses ressortis- 
sants (article 3, 1°) ou s'il est 
allegue que la capture d'un navire 
ennemi a eu lieu dans les eaux 
territoriales de cette Puissance 
(article 3, 2° (6)); 

2° par un particulier neutre, si 
la decision des tribunaux natio- 
naux a porte atteinte a ses pro- 
prietes (article 3, 1°), sous reserve 
toutefois du droit de la Puissance 
dont il releve de lui interdire 
l'acces de la Cour ou d'y agir elle- 
meme en ses lieu et place; 

3° par un particulier relevant 
de la Puissance ennemie, si la d£- 



230 



APPENDIX. 



judgment of the National Court 
injuriously affects his property in 
the cases referred to in Article 3 
(2), except that mentioned in par- 
agraph (6). 

Article 5. 

An appeal may also be brought 
on the same conditions as in the 
preceding Article, by persons 
belonging either to neutral States 
or to the enemy, deriving their 
rights from and entitled to repre- 
sent an individual qualified to 
appeal, and who have taken part 
in the proceedings before the 
National Court. Persons so enti- 
tled may appeal separately to the 
extent of their interest. 

The same rule applies in the 
case of persons belonging either to 
neutral States or to the enemy 
who derive their rights from and 
are entitled to represent a neutral 
Power whose property was the 
subject of the decision. 

Article 6. 

When, in accordance with the 
above Article 3, the International 
Court has jurisdiction, the National 
Courts cannot deal with a case in 
more than two instances. The 
municipal law of the belligerent 
captor shall decide whether the 
case may be brought before the 
International Court after judg- 
ment has been given in first 
instance or only after an appeal. 

If the National Courts fail to 
give final judgment within two 
years from the date of capture, 
the case may be carried direct 
to the International Court. 



cision des tribunaux nationaux a 
porte atteinte a ses proprietes dans 
les conditions visees a Particle 3, 
2°, a l'exception du cas prevu par 
l'alinea (6). 

Article 5. 

Le recours peut aussi etre exerce", 
dans les m§mes conditions qu'a 
l'article pecedent, par les ayants- 
droit, neutres ou ennemis, du par- 
ticulier auquel le recours est ac- 
corde, et qui sont intervenus de- 
vant la juridiction nationale. Ces 
ayants-droit peuvent exercer indi- 
viduellement le recours dans la 
mesure de leur interet. 



II en est de meme des ayants- 
droit, neutres ou ennemis, de la 
Puissance neutre dont la propriety 
est en cause. 



Article 6. 

Lorsque, conformement a l'arti- 
cle 3 ci-dessus, la Cour Interna- 
tionale est competente, le droit de 
juridiction des tribunaux natio- 
naux ne peut etre exerce a plus 
de deux degres. II appartient a la 
legislation du belligerant capteur 
de decider si le recours est ouvert 
apres la decision rendue en pre- 
mier ressort ou seulement apres la 
decision rendue en appel ou en 
cassation. 

Faute par les tribunaux natio- 
naux d' avoir rendu une decision 
definitive dans les deux ans a 
compter du jour de la capture, la 
Cour peut 6tre saisie directement. 



INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT. 



231 



Article 7. 

If a question of law to be decided 
is covered by a Treaty in force 
between the belligerent captor and 
a Power which is itself or whose 
subject or citizen is a party to the 
proceedings, the Court is governed 
by the provisions of the said 
Treaty. 

In the absence of such provi- 
sions, the Court shall apply the 
rules of international law. If no 
generally recognized rule exists, 
the Court shall give judgment in 
accordance with the general prin- 
ciples of justice and equity. 

The above provisions apply 
equally to questions relating to 
the order of evidence and the 
pleadings. 

If, in accordance with Article 3 
(2) (c), the ground of appeal is the 
violation of an enactment issued 
by the belligerent captor, the 
Court will enforce the enactment. 

The Court may disregard failure 
to comply with the procedure laid 
down in the enactments of the 
belligerent captor, when it is of 
opinion that the consequences of 
complying therewith are unjust 
and inequitable. 

Article 8. 

If the Court pronounces the cap- 
ture of the vessel or cargo to be 
valid, they shall be disposed of in 
accordance with the laws of the 
belligerent captor. 

If it pronounces the capture to 
be null, the Court shall order resti- 
tution of the vessel or cargo, and 
shall fix, if there is occasion, the 
amount of the damages. If the 
vessel or cargo have been sold or 



Article 7. 

Si la questioncle droit a resoudre 
est prevue par une Convention en 
vigueur entre le belligerant capteur 
et la Puissance qui est elle-meme 
partie au litige ou dont le ressortis- 
sant est partie au litige, la Cour 
se conforme aux stipulations de 
ladite Convention. 

A defaut de telles stipulations, 
la Cour applique les regies du droit 
international. Si des regies ge- 
neralement reconnues n' existent 
pas, la Cour statue d'apres les 
principes generaux de la justice 
et de l'equite. 

Les dispositions ci-dessus sont 
egalement applicables en ce qui 
concerne l'ordre des preuves ainsi 
que les moyens qui peuvent §tre 
employes. 

Si, conformement a l'article 3, 
2°, (c), le recours est fonde sur la 
violation d'une disposition legale 
edictee par le belligerant capteur, 
la Cour applique cette disposition. 

La Cour peut ne pas tenir compte 
des decheances de procedure 
edictees par la legislation du belli- 
gerant capteur, dans les cas oil elle 
estime que les consequences en 
sont contraires a la justice et a 
l'equite. 

Article 8. 

Si la Cour prononce la validite 
de la capture du navire ou de la 
cargaison, il en sera dispose con- 
formement aux lois du belligerant 
capteur. 

Si la nullite" de la capture est pro- 
noncee la Cour ordonne la restitu- 
tion du navire ou de la cargaison 
et fixe, s'il y a lieu, le montant 
des dommages-interets. Si le 
navire ou la cargaison ont ete ven- 



232 



APPENDIX. 



destroyed, the Court shall deter- 
mine the compensation to be given 
to the owner on this account. 

If the national Court pronounced 
the capture to be null, the Court 
can only be asked to decide as to 
the damages. 

Article 9. 

The Contracting Powers under- 
take to submit in good faith to the 
decisions of the International Prize 
Court and to carry them out with 
the least possible delay. 

Part II. — Constitution of the Inter- 
national Prize Court. 

Article 10. 

The International Prize Court is 
composed of Judges and Deputy 
Judges, who will be appointed by 
the Contracting Powers, and must 
all be jurists of known proficiency 
in questions of international mari- 
time law, and of the highest moral 
reputation. 

The appointment of these Judges 
and Deputy Judges shall be made 
within six months after the ratifica- 
tion of the present Convention. 

Article 11. 

The Judges and Deputy Judges 
are appointed for a period of six 
years, reckoned from the date on 
which the notification of their ap- 
pointment is received by the Ad- 
ministrative Council established 
by the Convention for the Pacific 
Settlement of International Dis- 
putes of the 29th July, 1899. Their 
appointments can be renewed. 

Should one of the Judges or De- 
puty Judges die or resign, the same 
procedure is followed for filling the 



dus ou detruits, la Cour deter- 
mine Pindemnite a accorder de 
ce chef au proprietaire. 

Si la nullite de la capture avait 
ete prononcee par la juridiction 
nationale, la Cour n'est appelee a 
statuer que sur les dommages et 
interets. 

Article 9. 

Les Puissances contractantes 
s'engagent a se soumettre de 
bonne foi aux decisions de la Cour 
internationale des prises et a les 
executer dans le plus bref delai 
possible. 

Titre II. — Organisation de la 
Cour internationale des prises. 

Article 10. 

La Cour internationale des prises 
se compose de juges et de juges 
suppleants, nommes par les Puis- 
sances contractantes et qui tous 
devront etre des jurisconsultes 
d'une competence reconnue dans 
les questions de droit interna- 
tional matitime et jouissant de la 
plus haute consideration morale. 

La nomination de ces juges et 
juges suppleants sera faite dans les 
six mois qui suivront la ratification 
de la presente Convention. 

Article 11. 

Les juges et juges suppleants 
sont nommes pour une periode de 
six ans, a compter de la date ou la 
notification de leur nomination 
aura ete recue par le Conseil ad- 
ministratif institue par la Conven- 
tion pour reglement pacifique des 
conflits internationaux du 29 
juillet 1899. Leur mandat peut 
etre renouvele. 

En cas de deces ou de demission 
d'un juge ou d'un juge suppliant, 
il est pourvu a son remplacement 



INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT. 



233 



vacancy as was followed for ap- 
pointing him. In this case, the 
appointment is made for a fresh 
period of six years. 

Article 12. 

The Judges of the International 
Prize Court are all equal in rank 
and have precedence according to 
the date on which the notification 
of their appointment was received 
(Article 11, paragraph 1), and if 
they sit by rota (Article 15, para- 
graph 2), according to the date on 
which they entered upon their 
duties. When the date is the same 
the senior in age takes precedence. 

The Deputy Judges when act- 
ing are assimilated to the Judges. 
They rank, however, after them. 



Article 13. 

The Judges enjoy diplomatic 
privileges and immunities in the 
performance of their duties and 
when outside their own country. 

Before taking their seat, the 
Judges must swear, or make a 
solemn promise before the Ad- 
ministrative Council, to discharge 
their duties impartially and con- 
scientiously. 

Article 14. 

The Court is composed of fifteen 
Judges; nine Judges constitute a 
quorum. 

A Judge who is absent or pre- 
vented from sitting is replaced by 
the Deputy Judge. 

Article 15. 

The Judges appointed by the 
following Contracting Powers: Ger- 
many, the United States of Amer- 



selon le mode fixe pour sa nomina- 
tion. Dans ce cas, la nomination 
est faite pour une nouvelle periode 
de six ans. 

Article 12. 

Les juges de la Cour interna- 
tionale des prises sont egaux entre 
eux et prennent rang d'apres la 
date ou la notification de leur 
nomination aura ete recue (article 
11, alinea 1), et, s'ils siegent a tour 
derole (article 15, alinea 2), d'apres 
la date de leur entree en fonctions. 
La preseance appartient au plus 
age, au cas ou la date est la meme* 

Les juges suppleants sont, dans 
l'exercice de leurs fonctions, as- 
similees aux juges titulaires. 
Toutefois ils prennent rang apres 
ceux-ci. 

Article 13. 

Les juges jouissent des privileges 
et immunites diplomatiques dans 
l'exercice de leurs fonctions et en 
dehors de leur pays. 

Avant de prendre possession de 
leur siege, les juges doivent, de- 
vant le Conseil administratif, pre- 
ter serment ou faire une affirma- 
tion solennelle d'exercer leurs 
fonctions avec impartialite et en 
toute conscience. 

Article 14. 

La Cour fonctionne au nombre 
de quinze juges; neuf juges con- 
stituent le quorum necessaire. 

Le juge absent ou empeche est 
remplace par le suppleant. 

Article 15. 

Les juges nommes par les Puis- 
sances contractantes dont les noms 
suivent: l'Allemagne, les Etats- 



234 



APPENDIX. 



ica, Austria - Hungary, France, 
Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and 
Russia, are always summoned to 
sit. 

The Judges and Deputy Judges 
appointed by the other Contract- 
ing Powers sit by rota as shown in 
the Table annexed to the pres- 
ent Convention; their duties may 
be performed successively by the 
same person. The same Judge 
may be appointed by several of 
the said Powers. 

Article 16. 

If a belligerent Power has, ac- 
cording to the rota, no Judge sit- 
ting in the Court, it may ask that 
the Judge appointed by it shall 
take part in the settlement of all 
cases arising from the war. Lots 
shall then be drawn as to which 
of the Judges entitled to sit ac- 
cording to the rota shall withdraw. 
This withdrawal does not apply to 
the Judge appointed by the other 
belligerent. 

Article 17. 

No Judge can sit who has been 
a party, in any way whatever, to 
the sentence pronounced by the 
National Courts, or has taken part 
in the case as counsel or advocate 
for one of the parties. 

No Judge or Deputy Judge can, 
during his tenure of office, appear 
as agent or advocate before the 
International Prize Court, nor act 
for one of the parties in any capac- 
ity whatever. 

Article 18. 

The belligerent captor is en- 
titled to appoint a naval officer of 
high rank to sit as Assessor, in an 
advisory capacity without vote . A 



Unis d'Amerique, l'Autriche-Hon- 
grie, la France, la Grande-Bre- 
tagne, PItalie, le Japon et la Russie 
sont toujours appeles a sieger. 

Les juges et les juges suppleants 
nommes par les autres Puissances 
contractantes siegent a tour de role 
d'apres le tableau annexe a la pre- 
sente Convention; leurs fonctions 
peuvent &tre exercees successive- 
ment par la m§me personne. Le 
meme juge peut etre nomme par 
plusieurs desdites Puissances. 

Article 16. 

Si une Puissance belligerante n'a 
pas, d'apres le tour de role, un 
juge siegeant dans la Cour, elle 
peut demander que le juge nomme' 
par elle prenne part au jugement 
de toutes les affaires provenant de 
la guerre. Dans ce cas, le sort de- 
termine lequel des juges siegeant 
en vertu du tour de role doit s'ab- 
stenir. Cette exclusion nesaurait 
s'appliquer au juge nomme par 
1' autre belligerant. 

Article 17. 

Ne peut sieger le juge qui, a un 
titre quelconque, aura concourru a 
la decision des tribunaux natio- 
naux ou aura figure dans 1' instance 
comme conseil ou avocat d'une 
partie. 

Aucun juge, titulaire ou supple- 
ant, ne peut intervenir comme 
agent ou comme avocat devant la 
Cour internationale des prises ni 
y agir pour une partie en quelque 
qualite que ce soit, pendant toute 
la duree de ses fonctions. 

Article 18. 

Le belligerant capteur a le droit 
de designer un officier de marine 
d'un grade eleve qui siegera en 
qualite d'assesseur avec voix con- 



INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT. 



235 



neutralPower, which is a party to 
the proceedings or whose subject 
or citizen is a party, has the same 
right of appointment; if as the re- 
sult of this last provision more than 
one Power is concerned,, they must 
agree among themselves, if neces- 
sary by lot, on the officer to be 
appointed. 

Article 19. 

The Court elects its President 
and Vice-President by an absolute 
majority of the votes cast. After 
two ballots, the election is de- 
cided by a plurality, and, in case 
the votes are equal, by lot. 

Article 20. 

The Judges on the International 
Prize Court are entitled to travel- 
ing allowances in accordance with 
the regulations in force in their 
own country, and in addition re- 
ceive, while the Court is sitting or 
while they are carrying out duties 
conferred upon them by the Court, 
a sum of 100 Netherlands florins 
per diem. 

These payments are included in 
the general expenses of the Court 
dealt with in Article 47, and are 
paid through the International 
Bureau established by the Con- 
vention of the 29th July, 1899. 

The Judges may not receive 
from their own Government or 
from that of any other Power any 
remuneration in their capacity of 
members of the Court. 

Article 21. 

The seat of the International 
Prize Court is at The Hague and it 
cannot, except in the case of force 
majeure, be transferred elsewhere 
without the consent of the bel- 
ligerents. 



sultative . La meme f aculte appar- 
tient a la Puissance neutre, qui est 
elle-meme partie au litige, ou a la 
Puissance dont le ressortissant est 
partie au litige; s'il y a, par applica- 
tion de cette derniere disposition, 
plusieurs Puissances interessees, 
elles doivent se concerter, au be- 
soin par le sort, sur l'officier a de- 
signer. 

Article 19. 

La Cour elit son President et son 
Vice-President a la majorite abso- 
lue des suffrages exprimes. Apres 
deux tours de scrutin, 1' election se 
fait a la majorite relative et, en cas 
de partage des voix, le sort decide. 

Article 20. 

Les juges de la Cour interna- 
tional des prises touchent une in- 
demnite de voyage fixee d'apres 
les reglements de leur pays et re- 
coivent, en outre, pendant la ses- 
sion ou pendant l'exercice de fonc- 
tions conferees par la Cour, une 
somme de cent florins neerlandais 
par jour. 

Ces allocations, comprises dans 
les frais generaux de la Cour prevus 
par Particle 47, sont versees par 
l'entremise du Bureau interna- 
tional institue par la Convention 
du 29 juillet 1899. 

Les juges ne peuvent recevoir de 
leur propre Gouvernement ou de 
celui d'une autre Puissance au- 
cune remuneration comme mem- 
bres de la Cour. 

Article 21. 

La Cour internationale des prises 
a son siege a La Haye et ne peut, 
sauf le cas de force majeure, le 
transporter aillews -qu'avec l'as- 
sentiment des Parties bellig6- 
rantes. 



236 



APPENDIX. 



Article 22. 

The Administrative Council ful- 
fils, with regard to the Interna- 
tional Prize Court, the same func- 
tions as to the Permanent Court of 
Arbitration, but only Representa- 
tives of Contracting Powers will 
be members of it. 

Article 23. 

The International Bureau acts 
as registry to the International 
Prize Court and must place its 
offices and staff at the disposal of 
the Court. It has charge of the 
archives and carries out the ad- 
ministrative work. 

The Secretary-General of the 
International Bureau acts as Regis- 
trar. 

The necessary secretaries to 
assist the Registrar, translators and 
shorthand writers are appointed 
and sworn in by the Court. 

Article 24. 

The Court determines which 
language it will itself use and what 
languages may be used before it. 

The official language of the Na- 
tional Courts which have had 
cognizance of the case may always 
be used before the Court. 

Article 25. 

Powers which are concerned in 
a case may appoint special agents 
to act as intermediaries between 
themselves and the Court. They 
may also engage counsel or advo- 
cates to defend their rights and 
interests. 

Article 26. 

A private person concerned in a 
case will be represented before 
the Court by an attorney, who 



Article 22. 

Le Conseil administratif, dans 
lequel ne figurent que les repre- 
sentants des Puissances con- 
tractantes, remplit, a Pegard de la 
Cour internationale des prises, les 
fonctions qu'il remplit a l'egard de 
la Cour permanente d'arbitrage. 

Article 23. 

Le Bureau international sert de 
greffe a la Cour internationale des 
prises et doit mettre ses locaux et 
son organisation a la disposition de 
la Cour. II a la garde des archives 
et la gestion des affaires adminis- 
tratives. 

Le Secretaire-General du Bureau 
international remplit les fonctions 
de greffier. 

Les secretaires adjoints au gref- 
fier, les traducteurs et les steno- 
graphes necessaires sont designes 
et assermentes par la Cour. 

Article 24. 

La Cour decide du choix de la 
langue dont elle fera usage et des 
langues dont l'emploi sera autorise 
devant elle. 

Dans tous les cas, la langue offi- 
cielle des tribunaux nationaux qui 
ont connu de 1' affaire, peut etre 
employee devant la Cour. 

Article 25. 

Les Puissances interessees ont le 
droit de nommer des agents spe- 
ciaux ayant mission de servir d'in- 
termediaires entre Elles et la Cour. 
Elles sont, en outre, autorisees a 
charger des conseils ou avocats 
de la defense de leurs droits et 
interets. 

Article 26. 

Le particulier interesse sera 
represente devant la Cour par un 
mandataire qui doit etre soit un 



INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT. 



237 



must be either an advocate quali- 
fied to plead before a Court of 
Appeal or a High Court of one of 
the Contracting States, or a lawyer 
practising before a similar Court, 
or lastly, a professor of law at one 
of the higher teaching centres of 
those countries. 

Article 27. 

For all notices to be served, in 
particular on the parties, wit- 
nesses, or experts, the Court may 
apply direct to the Government 
of the State on whose territory 
the service is to be carried out. 
The same rule applies in the case 
of steps being taken to J procure 
evidence. 

The requests for this purpose are 
to be executed so far as the means 
at the disposal of the Power ap- 
plied to under its municipal law 
allow. They cannot be rejected 
unless the Power in question con- 
siders them calculated to impair 
its sovereign rights or its safety. 
If the request is complied with, 
the fees charged must only com- 
prise the expenses actually in- 
curred. 

The Court is equally entitled to 
act through the Power on whose 
territory it sits. 

Notices to be given to parties in 
the place where the Court sits may 
be served through the Interna- 
tional Bureau. 

Part III. — Procedure in the Inter- 
national Prize Court. 

Article 28. 

An appeal to the International 
Prize Court is entered by means of 
a written declaration made in the 
National Court which has already 



avocat autorise a plaider devant 
une Cour d'appel ou une Cour 
supreme de l'un des Pays contrac- 
tants, soit un avoue exergant sa 
profession aupres d'une telle Cour, 
soit enfin un professeur de droit 
a une ecole d'enseignement supe- 
rieur d'un de ces pays. 

Article 27. 

Pour toutes les notifications a 
faire, notamment aux parties, aux 
temoins et aux experts, la Cour 
peut s'adresser directement au 
Gouvernement de la Puissance sur 
le territoire de laquelle la notifi- 
cation doit etre effectuee. II en 
est de meme s'il s'agit de faire 
proceder a l'etablissement de tout 
moyen de preuve. 

Les requetes adressees a cet 
effet seront executees suivant les 
moyens dont la Puissance requise 
dispose d'apres sa legislation inte- 
rieure. Elles ne peuvent etre re- 
fusees que si cette Puissance les 
juge de nature a porter atteinte a 
sa souverainete ou a sa securite. 
S'il est donne suite a la requete, 
les frais ne comprennent que les 
depenses d'execution reellement 
effectuees. 

La Cour a egalement la faculte" 
de recourir a l'intermediaire de la 
Puissance sur le territoire de la- 
quelle elle a son siege. 

Les notifications a faire aux par- 
ties dans le lieu oil siege la Cour 
peuvent etre executees par le Bu- 
reau international. 

Titre III. — Procedure devant la 
Cour Internationale des prises. 

Article 28. 

Le recours devant la Cour inter- 
nationale des prises est forme au 
moyen d'une declaration 6crite, 
faite devant le tribunal national 



238 



APPENDIX. 



dealt with the case or addressed 
to the International Bureau; in 
the latter case the appeal can be 
entered by telegram. 

The period within which the ap- 
peal must be entered is fixed at 
120 days, counting from the day 
the decision is delivered or noti- 
fied (Article 2, paragraph 2). 

Article 29. 

If the notice of appeal is entered 
in the National Court, this Court, 
without considering the question 
whether the appeal was entered 
in due time, will transmit within 
seven days the record of the case to 
the International Bureau. 

If the notice of the appeal is sent 
to the International Bureau, the 
Bureau will immediately inform 
the National Court, when possible 
by telegraph. The latter will 
transmit the record as provided in 
the preceding paragraph. 

When the appeal is brought by a 
neutral individual the Interna- 
tional Bureau at once informs by 
telegraph the individual's Govern- 
ment, in order to enable it to en- 
force the rights it enjoys under 
Article 4, paragraph 2. 

Article 30. 

In the case provided for in Arti- 
cle 6, paragraph 2, the notice of 
appeal can be addressed to the In- 
ternational Bureau only. It must 
be entered within thirty days of 
the expiration of the period of two 
years. 

Article 31. 

If the appellant does not enter 
his appeal within the period laid 
down in Articles 28 or 30, it shall 
be rejected without discussion. 



qui a statue, ou adressee au Bureau 
international; celui-ci peut etre 
saisi meme par telegramme. 

Le delai du recours est fixe a 
cent vingt jours a dater du jour ou 
la decision a ete prononcee ou 
notifiee (article 2, alinea 2). 



Article 29. 

Si la declaration de recours est 
faite devant le tribunal national, 
celui-ci, sans examiner si le delai a 
ete observe, fait, dans les sept jours 
qui suivent, expedier le dossier de 
1' affaire au Bureau international. 

Si la declaration de recours est 
adressee au Bureau international, 
celui-ci en previent directement le 
tribunal national, par telegramme 
s'il est possible. Le tribunal trans- 
mettra le dossier comme il est dit 
a P alinea precedent. 

Lorsque le recours est forme par 
un particulier neutre, le Bureau in- 
ternational en avise immediate- 
ment par telegramme la Puissance 
dont releve le particulier, pour per- 
mettre a cette Puissance de faire 
valoir le droit que lui reconnait 
Particle 4, 2°. 

Article 30. 

Dans le cas prevu a Particle 6, 
alinea 2, le recours ne peut etre 
adresse qu'au Bureau internatio- 
nal. II doit etre introduit dans 
les trente jours qui suivent Pex- 
piration du delai de deux ans. 

Article 31. 

Faute d 'avoir forme son recours 
dans le delai fixe a Particle 28 ou a 
Particle 30, la partie sera, sans de- 
bats, declaree non recevable. 



INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT. 



239 



Provided that he can show that 
he was prevented from so doing by 
force majeure, and that the appeal 
was entered within sixty days after 
the circumstances which pre- 
vented him entering it before had 
ceased to operate, the Court can, 
after hearing the respondent, grant 
relief from the effect of the above 



provision. 



Article 32. 



If the appeal is entered in time, 
a certified copy of the notice of 
appeal is forthwith officially trans- 
mitted by the Court to the re- 
spondent. 

Article 33. 

If, in addition to the parties who 
are before the Court, there are 
, other parties concerned who are 
entitled to appeal, or if, in the case 
referred to in Article 29, paragraph 
3, the Government who has re- 
ceived notice of an appeal has not 
announced its decision, the Court 
will await before dealing with the 
case the expiration of the period 
laid down in Articles 28 or 30. 

Article 34. 

The procedure before the Inter- 
national Court includes two dis- 
tinct parts: the written pleadings 
and oral discussions. 

The written pleadings consist of 
the deposit and exchange of cases, 
counter-cases, and, if necessary, of 
replies, of which the order is fixed 
by the Court, as also the periods 
within which they must be de- 
livered. The parties annex there- 
to all papers and documents of 
which they intend to make use. 

A certified copy of every docu- 
ment produced by one party must 
be communicated to the other 
party through the medium of the 
Court. 



Toutefois, si elle Justine d'un 
empechement de force majeure et 
si elle a forme son recours dans les 
soixante jours qui ont suivi la ces- 
sation de cet empechement, elle 
peut etre relevee de la decheance 
encourue, la partie adverse ayant 
ete dument entendue. 



Article 32. 

Si le recours a ete forme en 
temps utile, la Cour notifie d'office 
et sans delai a la partie adverse 
une copie certifiee conforme de la 
declaration . 

Article 33. 

Si, en dehors des parties qui se 
sont pourvues devant la Cour, il y 
a d'autres interesses ayant le droit 
d'exercer le recours, ou si, dans le 
cas prevu a 1' article 29, alinea 3, la 
Puissance qui a ete avisee, n'a pas 
fait connaitre sa resolution, la Cour 
attend, pour se saisir de l'affaire, 
que les delais prevus a Particle 28 
ou a 1' article 30 soient expires. 



Article 34. 

La procedure devant la Cour 
internationale comprend deux 
phases distinctes: 1' instruction 
ecrite et les debats oraux. 

L' instruction ecrite consiste dans 
le depot et l'echange d' exposes, de 
contre-exposes et, au besoin, de 
repliques dont 1'ordre et les delais 
sont fixes par la Cour. Les parties 
y joignent toutes pieces et docu- 
ments dont elles comptent se 
servir. 

Toute piece, produite par une 
partie, doit etre communiquee en 
copie certifiee conforme a 1' autre 
partie par l'intermediaire de la 
Cour. 



240 



APPENDIX. 



Article 35. 

After the close of the pleadings, 
a public sitting is held on a day 
fixed by the Court. 

At this sitting the parties state 
their view of the case both as to the 
law and as to the facts. 

The Court may, at any stage of 
the proceedings, suspend speeches 
of counsel, either at the request of 
one of the parties, or on their own 
initiative, in order that supple- 
mentary evidence may be ob- 
tained. 

Article 36. 

The International Court may 
order the supplementary evidence 
to be taken either in the manner 
provided by Article 27, or before 
itself, or one or more of the mem- 
bers of the Court, provided that 
this can be done without resort to 
compulsion or penalty. 

If steps are to be taken for the 
purpose of obtaining evidence by 
members of the Court outside the 
territory where it is sitting, the 
consent of the foreign Government 
must be obtained. 

Article 37. 

The parties are summoned to 
take part in all stages of the pro- 
ceedings and receive certified 
copies of the minutes. 

Article 38. 

The discussions are under the 
control of the President or Vice- 
President, or, in case they are 
absent or cannot act, of the senior 
Judge present. 

The Judge appointed by a bel- 
ligerent party cannot preside. 



Article 35. 

L'instruction ecrite £tant ter- 
minee, il y a lieu a une audience 
publique, dont le jour est fixe par 
la Cour. 

Dans cette audience, les parties 
exposent l'etat de 1' affaire en fait 
et en droit. 

La Cour peut, en tout etat de 
cause, suspendre les plaidoiries, 
soit a la demande d'une des par- 
ties, soit d' office, pour proceder a 
une information complementaire. 



Article 36. 

La Cour internationale peut or- 
donner que 1' information comple- 
mentaire aura lieu, soit conforme- 
ment aux dispositions de Particle 
27, soit directement devant elle ou 
devant un ou plusieurs de ses 
membres, en tant que cela peut se 
faire sans moyen coercitif ou com- 
minatoire. 

Si des mesures d' information 
doivent etre prises par des mem- 
bres de la Cour en dehors du terri- 
toire ou elle a son siege, Passenti- 
ment du Gouvernement etranger 
doit etre obtenu. 

Article 37. 

Les parties sont appelees a as- 
sister a toutes mesures d' instruc- 
tion. Elles recoivent une copie 
certified conforme des proces-ver- 
baux. 

Article 38. 

Les debats sont diriges par le 
President ou le Vice-President et, 
en cas d'absence ou d'empeche- 
ment de l'un et de l'autre, par le 
plus ancien des juges presents. 

Le juge nomine" par une Partie 
belligerante ne peut sieger comme 
President. 



INTERNATIONAL PEIZE COURT. 



241 



Article 39. 

The discussions take place in 
public, subject to the right of a 
Government who is a party to the 
case to demand that they be held 
in private. 

Minutes are taken of these dis- 
cussions and signed by the Presi- 
dent and Registrar, and these 
minutes alone have an authentic 
character. 

Article 40. 

If one of the parties does not 
appear, despite the fact that he has 
been duly cited, or fails to comply 
with some step within the period 
fixed by the Court, the case pro- 
ceeds without that party, and the 
Court gives judgment in accord- 
ance with the material at its dis- 
posal. 

Article 41. 

The Court officially notifies to 
the parties decrees or decisions 
made in their absence. 

Article 42. 

The Court takes into full con- 
sideration in arriving at its deci- 
sion all the facts, evidence, and 
oral statements. 

Article 43. 

The Court considers its decision 
in private and the proceedings are 
secret. 

All questions are decided by a 
majority of the Judges present. 
If the number of Judges is even 
and equally divided, the vote of 
the junior Judge in the order of 
precedence laid down in Article 
12, paragraph 1, is not counted. 

Article 44. 

The judgment of the Court must 
give the reasons on which it is 

55983—09 16 



Article 39. 

Les debats sont publics, sauf le 
droit pour une Puissance en litige 
de demander qu'il y soit precede* 
a huis clos. 

lis sont consignes dans des 
proces-verbaux, que signent le 
President et le greffier et qui seuls 
ont caractere authent'que. 

Article 40. 

En cas de non comparution 
d'une des parties, bien que regu- 
lierement citee, ou faute par elle 
d'agir dans les delais fixes par la 
Cour, il est procede sans elle et la 
Cour decide d'apres les elements 
d' appreciation qu'elle a a sa dis- 
position. 

Article 41. 

La Cour notifie d' office aux par- 
ties toutes decisions ou ordon- 
nances prises en leur absence. 

Article 42. 

La Cour apprecie librement 1' en- 
semble des actes, preuves et decla- 
rations orales. 

Article 43. 

Les deliberations de la Cour ont 
lieu a huis clos et restent secretes. 

Toute decision est prise a la 
majorito des juges presents. Si la 
Cour sipge en nombre pair et qu'il 
y ait partage des voix, la voix du 
dernier des juges, dans l'ordre de 
preseance etabli d'apres l'article 
12, alinea 1, n'est pas comptee. 

Article 44. 

L' arret de la Cour doit etre 
motive. II mentionne les noma 



242 



APPENDIX. 



based. It contains the names of 
the Judges taking part in it, and 
also of the Assessors, if any; it is 
signed by the President and 



Registrar. 



Article 45. 



The sentence is pronounced in 
public sitting, the parties con- 
cerned being present or duly sum- 
moned to attend; the sentence is 
officially communicated to the 
parties. 

When this communication has 
been made, the Court transmits to 
the National Prize Court the record 
of the case, together with copies of 
the various decisions arrived at 
and of the minutes of the 
proceedings. 

Article 46. 
Each party pays its own costs. 

The party against whom the 
Court decides bears, in addition, 
the costs of the trial, and also pays 
1 per cent, of the value of the 
subject-matter of the case as a con- 
tribution to the general expenses 
of the International Court. The 
amount of these payments is fixed 
in the judgment of the Court. 

If the appeal is brought by an 
individual, he will furnish the In- 
ternational Bureau with security 
to an amount fixed by the Court, 
for the purpose of guaranteeing 
eventual fulfilment of the two 
obligations mentioned in the pre- 
ceding paragraph. The Court is 
entitled to postpone the opening of 
the proceedings until the security 
has been furnished. 

Article 47. 

The general expenses of the In- 
ternational Prize Court are borne 
by the Contracting Powers in pro- 



des juges qui y ont participe, ainsi 
que les noms des assesseurs, s'il y a 
lieu; il est signe par le President 
et par le greffier. 

Article 45. 

L'arret est prononce en seance 
publique, les parties presentes ou 
dument appelees; il est notifie 
d'office aux parties. 



Cette notification une fois faite, 
la Cour fait parvenir au tribunal 
national des prises le dossier de 
1'affaire, en y joignant une expedi- 
tion des diverses decisions inter- 
venues, ainsi qu'une copie des 
proces-verbaux de F instruction. 

Article 46. 

Chaque partie supporte les frais 
occasionnes par sa propre defense. 

La partie qui succombe sup- 
porte, en outre, les frais causes par 
la procedure. Elle doit, de plus, 
verser un centieme de la valeur de 
Fob jet litigieux a titre de contri- 
bution aux frais generaux de la 
Cour internationale. Le montant 
de ces versements est determine 
par l'arret de la Cour. ^ 

Si le recours est exerce par un 
particulier, celui-ci fournit au 
Bureau international un cau- 
tionnement dont le montant est 
fixe par la Cour et qui est destine" a 
garantir 1' execution eventuelle des 
deux obligations mentionnees dans 
l'alinea precedent. La Cour peut 
subordonner l'ouverture de la pro- 
cedure au versement du cau- 
tionnement. 

Article 47. 

P? Les frais generaux de la Cour 
internationale des prises sont sup- 
ported par les Puissances contrac- 



INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT. 



243 



portion to their share in the compo- 
sition of the Court as laid down in 
Article 15 and in the annexed 
Table. The appointment of Dep- 
uty Judges does not involve any 
contribution. 

The Administrative Council ap- 
plies to the Powers for the funds 
requisite for the working of the 
Court. 

Article 48. 

When the Court is not sitting, 
the duties conferred upon it by 
Article 32, Article 34, paragraphs 
2 and 3, Article 35, paragraph 1, 
and Article 46, paragraph 3, are 
discharged by a delegation of three 
Judges appointed by the Court. 
This delegation decides by a ma- 
jority of votes. 

Article 49. 

The Court itself draws up its own 
rules of procedure, which must be 
communicated to the Contracting 
Powers. 

It will meet to elaborate these 
rules within a year of the ratifica- 
tion of the present Convention. 

Article 50. 

The Court may propose modifi- 
cations in the provisions of the 
present Convention concerning 
procedure. These proposals are 
communicated, through the medi- 
um of the Netherlands Govern- 
ment, to the Contracting Powers, 
which will consider together as to 
the measures to be taken. 

Part IV. — Final Provisions. 

Article 51. 

The present Convention does not 
apply as of right except when the 
belligerent Powers are all parties 
to the Convention. 



tantes dans la proportion de leur 
participation au fonctionnement 
de la Cour, telle qu'elle est prevue 
par Particle 15 et par le tableau y 
annexe. La designation des juges 
suppleants ne donne pas lieu a 
contribution. 

Le Conseil administratif s'a- 
dresse aux Puissances pour obtenir 
les fonds necessaires au fonctionne- 
ment de la Cour. 

Article 48. 

Quand la Cour n'est pas en ses- 
sion, les fonctions qui lui sont con- 
ferees par 1' article 32, l'article 34, 
alineas 2 et 3, l'article 35, alinea 1 
et l'article 46, alinea 3, sont exer- 
cees par une Delegation de trois 
juges designes par la Cour. Cette 
Delegation decide a la majorite des 
voix. 

Article 49. 

La Cour fait elle-meme son regle- 
ment d'ordre interieur, qui doit 
§tre communique aux Puissances 
contractantes. 

Dans 1'annee de la ratification de 
la presente Convention, elle se 
reunira pour elaborer ce regle- 
ment. 

Article 50. 

La Cour peut proposer des modi- 
fications a apporter aux disposi- 
tions de la presente Convention 
qui con cement la procedure. Ces 
propositions sont communiquees, 
par l'intermediaire du Gouverne- 
ment des Pays-Bas, aux Puissances 
contractantes qui se concerteront 
sur la suite a y donner. 

Titre IV. — Dispositions finales . 

Article 51. 

La presente Convention ne s' ap- 
plique de plein droit que si les 
Puissances belligerantes sont toutes 
parties a la Convention. 



244 



APPENDIX. 



r It is further fully understood 
that an appeal to the International 
Prize Court can only be brought 
about by a Contracting Power or 
the subject or citizen of a Con- 
tracting Power. 

In the cases mentioned in Arti- 
cle 5, the appeal is only admitted 
when both the owner and the per- 
son entitled to represent him are 
equally Contracting Powers or the 
subjects or citizens of Contracting 
Powers. 

Article 52. 

The present Convention shall be 
ratified and the ratifications shall 
be deposited at The Hague as soon 
as all the Powers mentioned in 
Article 15 and in the Table an- 
nexed are in a position to do so. 

The deposit of the ratifications 
shall take place, in any case, on the 
30th June, 1909, if the Powers 
which are ready to ratify furnish 
nine Judges and nine Deputy 
Judges to the Court, qualified to 
validly constitute a Court. If not, 
the deposit shall be postponed 
until this condition is fulfilled. 

A minute of the deposit of rati- 
fications shall be drawn up, of 
which a certified copy shall be for- 
warded, through the diplomatic 
channel, to each of the Powers 
referred to in the first paragraph. 

Article 53. 

The Powers referred to in Article 
15 and in the Table annexed are 
entitled to sign the present Con- 
vention up to the deposit of the 
ratifications contemplated in para- 
graph 2 of the preceding Article. 

After this deposit, they can at 
any time adhere to it, purely and 
simply. A Power wishing to ad- 
here, notifies its intention in writ- 



II est entendu, en outre, que le 
recours devant la Cour interna- 
tionale des prises ne peut etre 
exerce que par une Puissance con- 
tractante ou le ressortissant d'une 
Puissance contractante. 

Dans les cas de l'article 5, le 
recours n'est admis que si le pro- 
prietaire et l'ayant-droit sont cga- 
lement des Puissances contrac- 
tantes ou des ressortissants de Puis- 
sances contractantes. 

Article 52. 

La present e Convention sera 
ratifiee et les ratifications en seront 
deposees a La Haye des que toutes 
les Puissances designees a l'article 
15 et dans son annexe seront en 
mesure de le faire. 

Le depot des ratifications aura 
lieu, en tout cas, le 30 juin 1909, si 
les Puissances pretes a ratifier peu- 
vent fournir a la Cour neuf juges et 
neuf juges suppleants, aptes a, sie- 
ger effectivement. Dans le cas 
contraire, le depot sera ajourne 
jusqu'au moment ou cette condi- 
tion sera remplie. 

II sera dresse du depot des rati- 
fications un proces- verbal dont une 
copie, certifiee conforme, sera re- 
mise par la voie diplomatique a 
chacune des Puissances designees 
a l'alinea premier. 

Article 53. 

Les Puissances designees a Par- 
ticle 15 et dans son annexe sont ad- 
mises a signer la prcsente Conven- 
tion jusqu'au depot des ratifica- 
tions prevu par l'alinea 2 de l'ar- 
ticle precedent. 

Apres ce depot, elles seront tou- 
jours admises a y adherer, pure- 
ment et simplement. La Puis- 
sance qui desire adherer notifie par 



INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT. 



245 



ing to the Netherlands Government 
transmitting to it, at the same 
time, the act of adhesion, which 
shall be deposited in the archives 
of the said Government. The lat- 
ter shall send, through the diplo- 
matic channel, a certified copy of 
the notification and of the act of 
adhesion to all the Powers referred 
to in the preceding paragraph, 
informing them of the date on 
which it has received the notifica- 
tion. 

Article 54. 

The present Convention shall 
come into force six months from 
the deposit of the ratifications con- 
templated in Article 52, para- 
graphs 1 and 2. 

The adhesions shall take effect 
sixty days after notification of such 
adhesion has been received by the 
Netherlands Government, or as 
soon as possible on the expiration 
of the period contemplated in the 
preceding paragraph. 

The International Court shall, 
however, have jurisdiction to deal 
with prize cases decided by the 
National Courts at any time after 
the deposit of the ratifications or 
of the receipt of the notification of 
the adhesions. In such cases, the 
period fixed in Article 28, para- 
graph 2, shall only be reckoned 
from the date when the Conven- 
tion comes into force as regards a 
Power which has ratified or ad- 
hered. 

Article 55. 

The present Convention shall 
remain in force for twelve years 
from the time it comes into force, 
as determined by Article 54, para- 
graph 1, even in the case of Powers 
which adhere subsequently. 



ecrit son intention au Gouverne- 
ment des Pays-Bas en lui trans- 
mettant, en meme temps, l'acte 
d'adhesion qui sera depose dans 
les archives dudit Gouvernement. 
Celui-ci enverra, par la voie diplo- 
matique, une copie certiflee con- 
forme de la notification et de l'acte 
d'adhesion a toutes les Puissances 
designees a l'alinea precedent, en 
leur faisant savoir la date ou il a 
recu la notification. 

Article 54. 

La presente Convention entrera 
en vigueur six mois a partir du 
depot des ratifications prevu par 
1'article 52, alineas 1 et 2. 

Les adhesions produiront effet 
soixante jours apres que la notifi- 
cation en aura ete recue par le 
Gouvernement des Pa\s-Bas et, au 
plus tot, a 1' expiration du delai 
prevu par l'alinea precedent. 

Toutefois, la Cour international e 
aura qualite pour juger les affaires 
de prises decidees par la juridiction 
nationale a partir du depot des rati- 
fications ou de la reception de la 
notification des adhesions. Pour 
ces decisions, le delai fixe a 1'arti- 
cle 28, alinea 2, ne sera compte que 
de la date de la mise en vigueur de 
la Convention pour les Puissances 
ay ant ratifie ou adhere. 



Article 55. 

La presente Convention aura une 
duree de douze ans a partir de sa 
mise en vigueur, telle qu'elle est 
determinee par 1'article 54, alinea 
1, meme pour les Puissances ayant 
adhere posterieurement. 



246 



APPENDIX. 



It shall be renewed tacitly from 
six years to six years unless de- 
nounced. 

Denunciation must be notified 
in writing, at least one year before 
the expiration of each of the 
periods mentioned in the two pre- 
ceding paragraphs, to the Nether- 
lands Government, which will in- 
form all the other Contracting 
Powers. 

Denunciation shall only take 
effect in regard to the Power which 
has notified it. The Convention 
shall remain in force in the case of 
the other Contracting Powers, pro- 
vided that their participation in 
the appointment of Judges is suf- 
ficient to allow of the composi- 
tion of the Court with nine Judges 
and nine Deputy Judges. 

Article 56. 

In case the present Convention 
is not in operation as regards all 
the Powers referred to in Article 
15 and the annexed Table, the 
Administrative Council shall draw 
up a list on the lines of that Article 
and Table of the Judges and Dep- 
uty Judges through whom the Con- 
tracting Powers will share in the 
composition of the Court. The 
times allotted by the said Table to 
Judges who are summoned to sit in 
rota will be redistributed between 
the different years of the six-year 
period in such a way that, as far as 
possible, the number of the Judges 
of the Court in each year shall be 
the same. If the number of 
Deputy Judges is greater than that 
of the Judges, the number of the 
latter can be completed by Deputy 
Judges chosen by lot among those 
Powers which do not nominate a 
Judge. 



Elle sera renouvelee tacitement 
de six ans en six ans, sauf denon- 
ciation. 

La denonciation devra etre, au 
moins un an avant 1' expiration de 
chacune des periodes prevues par 
les deux alineas precedents, noti- 
fied par ecrit au Gouvernement des 
Pays-Bas, qui en donnera connais- 
sance a toute les autres Parties con- 
tractantes. 

La denonciation ne produira ses 
effets qu'a, l'egard de la Puissance 
qui l'aura notifiee. La Conven- 
tion subsistera pour les autres Puis- 
sances contractantes, pourvu que 
leur participation a la designation 
des juges soit suffisante pour per- 
mettre le fonctionnement de la 
Cour avec neuf juges et neuf juges 
suppleants. 

Article 56. 

Dans le cas ou la presente Con- 
vention n'est pas en vigueur pour 
toutes les Puissances designees 
dans l'article 15 et le tableau qui 
s'y rattache, le Conseil administra- 
tif dresse, conformement aux dispo- 
sitions de cet article et de ce ta- 
bleau, la liste des juges et des juges 
suppleants pour lesquels les Puis- 
sances contractantes participent 
au fonctionnement de la Cour. 
Les juges appeles a sieger a tour de 
role seront, pour le temps qui leur 
est attribue par le tableau susmen- 
tionne, repartis entre les diffe- 
rentes annees de la periode de six 
ans, de maniere que, dans la mesure 
du possible, la Cour fonctionne 
chaque annee en nombre egal. Si 
le nombre des juges suppleants de- 
passe celui des juges, le nombre de 
ces derniers pourra etre complete 
par des juges suppleants designes 
par le sort parmi celles des Puis- 
sances qui ne nomment pas de juge 
titulaire. 



INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT. 



247 



The list drawn up in this way 
by the Administrative Council 
shall be notified to the Contracting 
Powers. It shall be revised when 
the number of these Powers is 
modified as the result of adhesions 
or denunciations. 

The change resulting from an 
adhesion is not made until the 
1st January after the date on which 
the adhesion takes effect, unless 
the adhering Power is a belliger- 
ent Power, in which case it can 
ask to be at once represented in 
the Court, the provision of Article 
16 being, moreover, applicable if 
necessary. 

When the total number of Judges 
is less than eleven, seven Judges 
form a quorum. 

Article 57.. 

Two years before the expira- 
tion of each period referred to in 
paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 55 
any Contracting Power can de- 
mand a modification of the pro- 
visions of Article 15 and of the 
annexed Table, relative to its 
participation in the composition 
of the Court. The demand shall 
be addressed to the Administra- 
tive Council, which will examine 
it and submit to all the Powers pro- 
posals as to the measures to be 
adopted. The Powers shall in- 
form the Administrative Council 
of their decision with the least 
possible delay. The result shall 
be at once,"and at least one year 
and thirty days before the expira- 
tion of the said period of two years, 
communicated to the Power which 
made the demand. 

When necessary, the modifica- 
tions adopted by the Powers shall 
come into force from the com- 
mencement of the fresh period. 



La liste ainsi dressee par le Con- 
seil administratif sera notifiee aux 
Puissances contractantes. Elle 
sera revisee quand le nombre de 
celles-ci sera modifie par suite 
d'adhesions ou de denonciations. 

Le changement a operer par suite 
d'une adhesion ne se produira qu'a 
partir du l er Janvier qui suit la 
date a laquelle l'adhesion a son 
effet, a moins que la Puissance ad- 
herente ne soit une Puissance bel- 
ligerante, cas auquel elle peut de- 
mand er d'etre aussitot representee 
dans la Cour, la disposition de 1' ar- 
ticle 16 etant du reste applicable, 
s'il y a lieu. 

Quand le nombre total des juges 
est inferieur a onze, sept juges con- 
stituent le quorum necessaire. 

Article 57. 

Deux ans avant 1' expiration de 
chaque periode visee par les alineas 
1 et 2 de l'article 55, chaque Puis- 
sance contractante pourra de- 
mander une modification des dis- 
positions de Particle 15 et du ta- 
bleau y annexe, relativement a sa 
participation au fonctionnement 
de la Cour. La demande sera 
adressee au Conseil administratif, 
qui l'examinera et soumettra a 
toutes les Puissances des proposi- 
tions sur la suite a y donner. Les 
Puissances feront, dans le plus 
bref delai possible, connaitre leur 
resolution au Conseil administratif. 
Le resultat sera immediatement, 
et au moins un an et trente jours 
avant l'expiration dudit delai de 
deux ans, communique a la Puis- 
sance qui a fait la demande. 

Le cas echeant, les modifications 
adoptees par les Puisances entre- 
ront en vigueur des le commence- 
ment de la nouvelle periode. 



248 



. APPENDIX. 



In faith whereof the Plenipoten- 
tiaries have appended their signa- 
tures to the present Convention. « 

Done at The Hague, the 18th 
October, 1907, in a single copy, 
which shall remain deposited in 
the archives of the Netherlands 
Government, and duly certified 
copies of which shall be sent, 
through the diplomatic channel, 
to the Powers designated in Article 
15 and in the Table annexed. 



En foi de quoi les Plenipoten- 
tiaires ont revetu la presente con- 
vention de leurs signatures. 

Fait a La Haye, le dix-huit oc- 
tobre mil neuf cent sept, en un 
seul exemplaire qui restera depose 
dans les archives du Gouverne- 
ment des Pays-Bas et dont des 
copies, certifiees conformes, seront 
remises par la voie diplomatique 
aux Puissances designees a Parti- 
cle 15 et dans son annexe. 



ANNEX TO ARTICLE 15. 

Distribution of Judges and Deputy Judges by Countries for each Year of 

the period of Six Years. 



FIRST YEAR. 



FOURTH YEAR. 



Judges. 



Argentina... 
Colombia.... 

Spain 

Greece 

Norway 

Netherlands. 
Turkey 



Deputy Judges. 



Paraguay. 

Bolivia. 

Spain. 

Roumania. 

Sweden. 

Belgium. 

Persia. 



SECOND YEAR. 



Argentina... 

Spain 

Greece 

Norway 

Netherlands. 

Turkey 

Uruguay 



Panama. 

Spain. 

Roumania. 

Sweden. 

Belgium. 

Luxemburg. 

Costa Rica. 



THIRD YEAR. 



Brazil 

China 

Spain 

Netherlands. 
Roumania.. 

Sweden 

Venezuela... 



Santo Domingo. 

Turkey. 

Portugal. 

Switzerland. 

Greece. 

Denmark. 

Haiti. 



Judges. 



Brazil 

China 

Spain 

Peru 

Roumania.. 

Sweden 

Switzerland. 



Deputy Judges. 



Guatemala. 

Turkey. 

Portugal. 

Honduras. 

Greece. 

Denmark. 

Netherlands. 



FIFTH YEAR. 



Belgium.. 
Bulgaria. 

Chile 

Denmark. 
Mexico . . . 

Persia 

Portugal . 



Netherlands. 

Montenegro. 

Nicaragua. 

Norway. 

Cuba. 

China. 

Spain. 



SIXTH YEAR. 



Belgium Netherlands. 

Chile Salvador. 

Denmark Norway. 

Mexico ! Ecuador. 

Portugal j Spain. 

Servia ; Bulgaria. 

Siam i China. 



a See at end, Table of Signatures. 



250 



APPENDIX. 



TABLE OF SIGNATURES APPENDED TO THE HAGUE 

THE RESERVA 

[S=signed. R=reserved.] 





1 


2 

Con- 


3 


4 


5 


6 

Con- 


7 






vention 






Con- 


vention 


Con- 
vention 

rela- 
tive to 

the 

con- 




Con- 
vention 


respect- 
ing the 
limita- 


Con- 
vention 

rela- 
tive to 

the 


Con- 
vention 


vention 
respect- 
ing the 


rela- 
tive to 
the 




for the 


tion of 


respect- 


rights 


status 




pacific 
settle- 


the em- 
ploy- 


ing the 
laws 


and du- 
ties of 


of 

enemy 




ment of 


ment 


and 


neutral 


mer- 


of mer- 
chant 
ships 
into 




inter- 
nation- 
al dis- 
putes. 


of force 
for the 
recov- 
ery of 


open- 
ing of 
hos- 
tilities. 


cus- 
toms of 
war on 

land. 


powers 

and 
persons 
in case 


chant 
ships 
at the 
out- 






con- 






of war 


break 


ships. 






tract 






on land. 


of hos- 






debts. 








tilities. 




1. Germany i 
















2. United States of Amer- 


S R 


S 


S 


S 


S 






ica. 






3. Argentina 


S 


S R 


S 


S 


S R 


s 


s 


4. Austria-Hungary 


















S 




S 


S 


S 


S 


s 


6. Bolivia 


s 

S R 

s 


S R 
S 


s 
s 
s 


S 
S 
S 


S 

s 
s 


S 
S 

s 


S 
S 
S 


7. Brazil 


8. Bulgaria 


9. Chile 


S R 


s 


s 


S 


s 


s 


S 


10. China 


11. Colombia 


s 
s 
s 
s 


S R 

s 
s 

S R 


s 
s 
s 
s 


S 
S 
S 

s 


s 
s 
s 
s 


S 
S 
S 

s 


S 
S 
S 


12. Cuba 


13. Denmark 


14. Dominican Republic... 


15. Ecuador 
















16. Spain 


s 


s 


s 




s 


s 


S 


17. France 


s 


S 


s 


s 


s 


s 


s 


18. Great Britain 


19. Greece 


S R 

s 

s 


S R 
S R 

S 


s 
s 
s 


s 
s 
s 


s 
s 
s 


s 
s 
s 


s 
s 
s 


20. Guatemala... 


21. Haiti 


22. Italy 



Note.— Nos. of Conventions 



TABLE OP SIGNATURES. 



251 



CONFERENCE CONVENTIONS OF 1907, AND ALSO OF 
TIONS MADE. 

[S=signed. R=reserved.] 



8 

Conven- 
tion rel- 
ative to 
the laying 
of auto- 
matic sub- 
marine 
contact 
mines. 


9 

Conven- 
tion re- 
specting 

bom- 
bardment 
by naval 
forces in 
time of 
war. 


10 

Conven- 
tion for 
the adap- 
tation to 
naval war 

of the 
principles 
of the 
Geneva 
Conven- 
tion. 


11 

Convention 
relative to 

certain 
restrictions 
with regard 
to the ex- 
ercise of the 

right of 
capture in 
naval war. 


12 

Conven- 
tion rela- 
tive to 
the crea- 
tion 
of an In- 
terna- 
tional 
Prize 
Court. 


13 

Conven- 
tion con- 
cerning 
the rights 
and duties 
of neutral 
powers in 
naval 
war. 


14 

Declara- 
tion, 
prohibit- 
ing the 
discharge 
of 
projec- 
tiles and 
explo- 
sives 
from 
balloons. 


15 

The final 
act. 
















s 


S 
S 


S 
S 


S 

S 


S 

s 


S 

s 




S 
S 


s 


S 


s 
s 


S 
S 
S 
S 
S 


S 
S 
S 
S 
S R 


s 
s 
s 
s 
s 


s 
s 
s 
s 
s 


s 
s 


S 
S 
S 

S 

s 


S 
S 

s 
s 
s 


s 
s 
s 


s 

S R 


s 
s 
s 


S 
S 


S 

s 
s 
s 


s 
s 
s 
s 


s 
s 
s 
s 


s 

S R 

s 


s 


s 
s 


s 
s 




s 


S R 


S R 


s 


s 




s 






s 
s 


s 
s 








s 






s 


s 




s 








s 


S 

S 

s 


s 
s 


s 
s 


s 
s 
s 




s 
s 
s 


s 


s 


S R 
S R 


s 


s 


s 


s 


s 
s 



are those of pages 126-7. 



252 APPENDIX. 

Table of. Signatures Appended to the Hague Conference Conven 





1 


2 

Con- 
vention 


3 


4: 


5 

Con- 


6 

Con- 


7 






re- 






vention 


vention 


Con- 
vention 
relative 
to the 
conver- 
sion of 

mer- 
chant 

ships 

into 




Con- 
vention 
for the 
pacific 
settle- 
ment of 
inter- 
nation- 
al dis- 


spect- 
ing the 
limita- 
tion of 
the em- 
ploy- 
ment 
of force 
for the 


Con- 
vention 
relative 
to the 
open- 
ing of 
hos- 
tilities. 


Con- 
vention 
re- 
spect- 
ing the 
laws 
and 
cus- 
toms of 


re- 
spect- 
ing the 
rights 
and du- 
ties of 
neutral 
powers 
and 


relative 
to the 
status 

of 
enemy 

mer- 
chant 

ships 
at the 




putes. 


recov- 
ery of 




war on 
land. 


persons 
in case 


out- 
break 


war 
ships. 






con- 






of war 


of hos- 






tract 






on land. 


tilities. 








debts. 












23. Japan 
















24. Luxembourg 


s 




S 


s 


s 


S 


s 


25. Mexico 


S 

s 


s 

s 


S 

s 


S 
S R 


S 
S 


S 
S 


S 

s 


26. Montenegro 


27. Nicaragua 
















28. Norway 


s 


S 


s 


s 


s 


s 


s 


29. Panama 


s 


s 


s 


s 


S 


S 


S 


30. Paraguay 


31. Netherlands 


s 

S 
S 

s 


s 

S R 

s 
s 


S 
S 
S 


s 
s 
s 
s 


S 
S 
S 

s 


S 
S 

s 


S 
S 
S 
S 


32. Peru 


33. Persia 


34. Portugal 


35. Roumania 








s 

S R 

S 
S 

s 
s 








36. Russia 


s 
s 

s 

S 


s 

S R 
S 


S 
S 

s 
s 

s 


S 
S 
S 
S 
S 


S R 

s 
s 
s 
s 


S 
S 
S 
S 
S 


37. Salvador 


38. Servia 


39. Siam 


40. Sweden 








42. Turkey.... 
















43. Uruguay 


s 


S R 


s 


s 


S 


s 




44. Venezuela 


s 




s 


s 


S 


s 


S 





Note.— Nos. of Conventions 



TABLE OF SIGNATURES. 

tions of 1907, and also of the Reservations Made — Continued. 



253 



8 

Conven- 
tion rel- 
ative to 
the laying 

of auto- 
matic sub- 
marine 
contact 
mines. 


9 

Conven- 
tion re- 
specting 

bom- 
bardment 
by naval 
forces in 
time of 
"' war. 


10 

Conven- 
tion for 
the adap- 
tation to 

naval 
war of the 

prin- 
ciples of 

the 
Geneva 
Conven- 
tion. 


11 

Convention 
relative to 

certain 
restrictions 
with re- 
gard 
to the ex- 
ercise of the 

right of 

capture in 

naval 

war. 


12 

Conven- 
tion rela- 
tive to 

the 
creation 
of an In- 
terna- 
tional 
Prize 
Court. 


13 

Conven- 
tion con- 
corning 
the rights 
and duties 
of neutral 
powers in 
naval 
war. 


14: 

Declara- 
tion 
prohibit- 
ing the 
dis- 
charge of 
projec- 
tiles and 
explo- 
si ves 
from 
balloons. 


15 

The final 
act. 
















S 


S 
S 


. S 

s 
s 


S 
S 
S 


S 
S 




S 
S 
S 


S 


s 


S 


s 




S 










S 


S 
S 


s 
s 


S 
S 


s 
s 


S 
S 


S 
S 


S 

S 


S 
S 


S 

s 
s 


s 

s 
s 


S 

s 

S R 

S 


s 

s 
s 
s 


S 

S 

S R 


S 

S 

S R 


S 
S 
S 

s 


S 
S 
S 

s 










s 




s 
s 
s 
s 
s 


s 
s 
s 
s 

s 






S 

s 
s 

S R 




s 


s 
s 

S R 


s 
s 
s 


S R 


s 


s 
s 


S R 

S 


s 


s 
s 










S R 


















s 
s 


s 
s 


s 
s 


s 
s 


S R 


s 
s 


s 


s 
s 









are those of pages 126-7. 



254 APPENDIX. 

RESERVATIONS. 

I. America. — Under reservation of the declaration made in the ple- 
nary session of the Conference of October 16, 1907. 
Brazil. — With reservation as to article 53, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4. 
Chile. — Under reservation of the Declaration formulated with 
regard to article 39 in the seventh session of October 7 
of the First Commission. 
Greece. — With reservation of paragraph 2 of article 53. 
IL V Argentina. — The Argentine Republic makes the following reserva- 
tions: 

1. With regard to debts arising from ordinary contracts be- 

tween the citizen or subject of a nation and a foreign 
government, recourse shall not be had to arbitration 
except in the specific case of a denial of justice by the 
courts of the country where the contract was made, the 
remedies before which courts must first have been ex- 
hausted. 

2. Public loans, secured by bond issues and constituting the 

national debt, shall in no case give rise to military aggres- 
sion or the material occupation of the soil of American 
nations. 
Bolivia. — With the reservation stated to the First Commission. 
Colombia. — Colombia makes the following reservations: She does 
not agree to the employment of force in any case 
for the recovery of debts, whatever be their nature. 
She accepts arbitration only after a final decision 
has been rendered by the courts of the debtor nations. 
Dominican Republic. — With the reservation made at the plenary 

session of October 16, 1907. 
Greece. — With the reservation made at the plenary session of 

October 16, 1907. 
Guatemala. — 1. With regard to debts arising from ordinary con- 
tracts between the citizens or subjects of a 
nation and a foreign government, recourse shall 
be had to arbitration only in case of a denial of 
justice by the courts of the country where the 
contract was made, the remedies before which 
courts must first have been exhausted. 
2. Public loans secured by bond issues and con- 
stituting national debts shall in no case give 
rise to military aggression or the material occu- 
pation of the soil of American nations. 
Peru. — With the reservation that the principles laid down in this 
Convention shall not be applicable to claims or differ- 
ences arising from contracts concluded by a country 
with foreign subjects when it has been expressly stipu- 
lated in these contracts that the claims or differences 
must be submitted to the judges or courts of the country 






RESERVATIONS. 255 

II. Salvador. — We make the same reservations as the Argentine 
Republic above. 
Uruguay. — Under reservation of the first paragraph of article 1, 
because the Delegation considers that arbitration 
may always be refused as a matter of right if the 
fundamental law of the debtor nation, prior to the 
contract which has given rise to the doubts or dis- 
putes, or this contract itself, has stipulated that 
such doubts or disputes shall be settled by the 
courts of the said nation. 
IV. Montenegro. — With the reservation formulated in article 44 of 
the Regulations annexed to the present Con- 
vention and contained in the minutes of the 
fourth plenary session of August 17, 1907. 
Russia.— With the reservations formulated in article 44 of the 
Regulations annexed to the present Convention and 
contained in the minutes of the fourth plenary 
session of August 17, 1907. 
V. Argentina. — The Argentine Republic makes reservation of 
article 19. 
VI. Russia. — With the reservations formulated in article 3 and 
article 4, paragraph 2, of the present Convention, 
and embodied in the minutes of the seventh plenary 
session of September 27, 1907. 
VIII. Dominican Republic. — With reservation as to the first para- 
graph of article 1. 
Siam. — With reservation of article 1, paragraph 1. 
IX. Chile. — With reservation of article 3, formulated during the 

fourth plenary session of August 17. 
X. Persia. — With reservation of the right, recognized by the Con- 
ference, to use the Lion and Red Sun instead of and 
in the place of the Red Cross. 
XII. Chile. — With reservation of article 15, formulated at the sixth 
plenary session^of September 21. 
Cuba. — With reservation of article 15. 
Guatemala. — With the reservations formulated concerning 

article 15. 
Haiti. — With the reservation regarding article 15. 
Persia. — With reservation of article 15. 
Salvador. — With reservation of article 15. 
Siam. — With reservation of aritcle 15. 
Uruguay. — With reservation of article 15. 
XIII. Dominican Republic. — With reservation regarding article 12. 
Persia. — With reservation of articles 12, 19, and 21. 
Siam. — With reservation of articles 12, 19, and 23. 
XV. Switzerland. — With reservation of Wish No. 1, which the Federal 
Council did not accept. 

o 



gssa